Oh, that reminds me. A decision that just came down from the 5th Circuit, considering nearly the exact same legal issues. Spoiler: when the kid is from a country/has a parent from a country that the current Regime hates....well, it's just fine so ship him back. Amazing how the "principles" of the conservative movement aren't principles at all:
Brito Guevara v. Francisco Castro No. 24-10520
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10520-CV0.pdf
Oral Argument Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIY57lB5Eyg
Before RICHMAN, WILLETT, and DOUGLAS, Circuit Judges.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (June 2, 2025).
Judge DOUGLAS dissented.
When A.F. was five years old, her mother, Samantha Estefania Francisco Castro, removed her from the lawful custody of her father, Jose Leonardo Brito Guevara, in Venezuela and then illegally immigrated with A.F. to the United States. Brito petitioned for A.F.’s return under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The District Court denied the petition, finding that although Brito had established a prima facie case of wrongful removal, A.F. was now well-settled in Texas. Brito appealed. A panel majority of the Fifth Circuit is not persuaded that A.F. had formed such deep or enduring ties to her new environment that returning to her home in Venezuela would contravene her best interests. Explaining that making this decision is neither easy nor without sorrow, the majority reasons that A.F.'s young age, the instability of her residence and her mother's employment, and the uncertain immigration status of both A.F. and her mother weigh against a finding that A.F. was well-settled in the United States. Emphasizing that its ruling accords with the Hague Convention's core objective, namely to restore the pre-abduction status quo and deter parents from seeking more favorable Courts across borders, the Fifth Circuit reverses the District Court's decision, renders judgment in favor of Brito, and remands the case to the District Court with instructions that it enter an order directing A.F.'s return to Venezuela. A dissenting Judge charges the majority opinion with reweighing evidence and failing to provide proper deference to the District Court’s findings. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that A.F. has formed significant connections in Texas and that the District Court’s findings on her well-settled status were not clearly erroneous.
_____________________
For the record, I believe this is likely the correct decision under the law. Just like I thought the court decisions to return Elian Gonzalez were correct under the law. Because I - unlike any MAGAts - actually believe in the Rule of Law, and its objective application to the facts.
MAGAts, on the other hand, are entirely outcome-based, with zero guiding principles and no adherence to the Rule of Law.