Golan v. Saada
596 U.S. 666
SCOTUS2022Background
- Hague Convention/ICARA framework: the Convention generally requires prompt return of a child wrongfully removed from habitual residence but permits denial if return would pose a "grave risk" of physical or psychological harm (Art. 13(b)); ICARA implements the Convention in U.S. courts.
- Parties/facts: Golan (U.S. citizen) and Saada (Italian citizen) lived in Italy; their son B.A.S. was born in Italy in 2016. In 2018 Golan came to the U.S. with B.A.S. and remained in a domestic-violence shelter, refusing to return to Italy.
- Procedural history: Saada filed a Hague/ICARA petition in EDNY seeking B.A.S.’s return. The District Court found wrongful retention and a grave risk to the child but ordered return after requiring and accepting ameliorative measures from Saada under Second Circuit precedent.
- Second Circuit decision: vacated and remanded, holding that after a grave-risk finding a district court must "examine the full range of options" and consider only adequate, enforceable ameliorative measures; directed the District Court to identify alternatives.
- District Court on remand (9 months): worked with parties and Italian authorities; Italian courts issued protective orders and oversight (supervised visits, social-services supervision); District Court again ordered return and the Second Circuit affirmed.
- Supreme Court grant: presented the question whether a court is categorically required to consider ameliorative measures after finding grave risk and, if not, what standards should guide such consideration; Court vacated the Second Circuit judgment and remanded for the District Court to apply the correct legal standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Golan) | Defendant's Argument (Saada) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court is categorically required to consider all possible ameliorative measures before denying return under Art.13(b) | No categorical requirement; courts have discretion and may decline to consider measures in appropriate circumstances | Yes: determining grave risk necessarily requires assessing ameliorative measures to see if return can be made safe | No categorical requirement; courts have discretion whether to consider measures, constrained by Convention objectives (child safety, non-usurpation, expedition) |
| Whether the District Court’s post-remand return order should be upheld or whether the case should be remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard | Measures are inadequate and intrusive on custody; urge reversal | Asked remand so District Court can apply correct discretionary standard | Vacated Second Circuit judgment and remanded for the District Court to apply correct standard in first instance (remand ordered) |
| Limits on considering ameliorative measures (scope and standards) | Courts must prioritize child safety and may refuse measures that are unworkable, would not protect the child, or would cause undue delay | (Saada argued proposed measures were sufficient and enforceable) | Court provided guidance: consider measures raised by parties or obvious from circumstances; decline measures that would not work, usurp custody decisions, or unduly prolong expeditious proceedings; review for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (treaty interpretation begins with text)
- Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (courts cannot rewrite treaty by imposing atextual requirements)
- Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. _ (Hague return is a provisional remedy; remand practice guidance)
- Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir.) (earlier Second Circuit rule requiring development of ameliorative measures)
- Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (Second Circuit’s directive to "examine the full range of options")
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (expedition and provisional nature of return remedy)