Soto v. Kim CA5

── Soto v. Kim CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 Soto v. Kim CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIK ALMAZAN SOTO, F088789 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 24CEFL03079) v. ANDREA GUYLENNE MORALES KIM, OPINION Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jennifer L. Hamilton, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Gilbert Zavala for Appellant. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, Kendra J. Hall and Adrian Martinez for Respondent. -ooOoo-  Appellant Erik Almazan Soto (father) filed this appeal after the trial court denied his petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) (22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq.) to immediately return his two minor children to Mexico. The trial court found respondent Andrea Gaylene Morales Kim (mother) had adequately proven two affirmative defenses to the petition. Father challenges the trial court’s ruling. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father and mother married in 2010. They eventually had two children, a daughter born in 2014 and a son born in 2016 (the children). Mother initially filed for divorce in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico in 2020. Later, in October 2022, father filed his own divorce petition, also in Merida. The divorce proceedings were finalized in July 2023, and the parties are now divorced. As part of the divorce proceedings, mother was granted temporary custody of the children. Later, father was granted supervised visitation that should have occurred in Mexico between April and July 2023. Mother did not bring the children to these visits, however, and in July 2023, custody was granted to father. Mother challenged this order, and it was allegedly stayed at the time of the hearing in this case. Father claims that around this time, he learned that mother had moved with the children to the United States. He admitted he had not seen the children since he attended an event for his daughter in Cancun in 2022 and said mother had removed the children from school in Merida as of November 2022. Father stated he only learned of mother’s move when the family court in Mexico informed him in July 2023. Father denied granting permission to move the children out of Mexico. Father further claimed that after the custody change, mother falsely accused him of domestic violence in Mexico and obtained the equivalent of a protective order. Father alleged the protective order was dropped when mother failed to appear at the relevant 2. hearings. During these proceedings, father claims that mother represented she was still in Mexico despite the fact she had moved to the United States. Mother admitted she left Mexico in 2022 without telling father and justified the act by saying father had not been in contact with the family and had not seen the children in over a year. Mother asserted that father abandoned the family in 2020 and prior to that time, he was very strict with the children. Mother claimed father struck their daughter with a belt when she was four or five years old and frequently yelled a