## Facts

- Narkis Golan, a United States citizen, married Isacco Saada, an Italian citizen, in Italy in 2015.
- The couple lived in Italy and had a son, B.A.S., in 2016.
- Saada repeatedly verbally and physically abused Golan, often in the child’s presence.
- In 2018, Golan left Italy with B.A.S. and went to the United States.
- Saada filed a petition in federal district court in New York under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), seeking the child’s return to Italy.
- The district court found Italy was B.A.S.’s habitual residence and that Golan’s removal of the child to the United States was wrongful.
- The district court also found that returning B.A.S. to Italy would expose him to a “grave risk” of physical or psychological harm because of Saada’s domestic violence.
- Relying on then-binding Second Circuit precedent, the district court believed it had to examine a broad set of possible protective steps before denying return based on grave risk, and it ordered return subject to conditions (including financial support, therapy, and separate living arrangements).
- The Second Circuit reversed, ruling the initial conditions were insufficient, and sent the case back for further consideration of alternative measures.
- On remand, the district court added further steps (including obtaining a protective order in Italy and requiring substantially increased financial support) and again ordered return; the Second Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Hague Convention requires courts to consider all possible ameliorative measures after finding grave risk.

## Issues

1. After a court finds a “grave risk” under Hague Convention Article 13(b), must the court consider and exhaust all possible ameliorative measures before it may deny a return petition?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that neither the Hague Convention nor ICARA categorically requires a court, after finding grave risk, to consider all possible ameliorative measures before denying return.
- The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s rule requiring courts to examine the “full range” of potential measures in every grave-risk case.
- The Court left to the lower courts, on remand, whether any measures proposed or clearly indicated by the record should be considered and whether return should be ordered under the proper standard.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hague Convention, once wrongful removal or retention from the child’s habitual residence is shown, return is generally required; however, Article 13(b) creates an exception when return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
- Article 13(b) states the court is “not bound” to order return upon a grave-risk showing, which gives the court discretion rather than imposing mandatory additional steps.
- The Convention does not require a judge to conduct an open-ended search for every conceivable protective condition after a grave-risk finding.
- A court may consider ameliorative measures, particularly when proposed by the parties or when plainly indicated by the circumstances, but it may decline measures that are unworkable, unlikely to be followed, or difficult to enforce.
- Courts should avoid conditions that effectively decide custody, visitation, or long-term family arrangements better handled by the courts of the child’s habitual residence.
- Courts should also avoid measures that cause significant delay, given the Convention’s emphasis on prompt resolution of return petitions.
- ICARA directs U.S. courts to apply the Convention; it does not authorize judge-made categorical requirements that conflict with the Convention’s discretionary structure in Article 13(b).

## Conclusion

Golan v. Saada holds that once a court finds returning a child would create a grave risk under Article 13(b), the court has discretion to deny return without first considering every possible ameliorative measure; the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and remanded for further proceedings under that discretionary framework.


Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666, 142 S.Ct. 1880, 213 L.Ed. 203 (2022)