Saada v. Golan, 930 F.3d 533

Parties: Golan (mother, U.S. citizen) removed the child B.A.S. from Milan to New York and stayed at a domestic‑violence shelter; Saada (father, Italian citizen) filed a Hague Convention petition for return to Italy.
Family history: Parents married in Italy; B.A.S. born in Milan and lived there almost continuously for his first two years; the record contains repeated domestic‑violence incidents by Saada, many witnessed by the child.
District Court trial: Nine‑day bench trial with lay and expert testimony; the District Court found Italy to be B.A.S.’s habitual residence and that return would create a grave risk of harm to the child.
Undertakings: The District Court nonetheless ordered return conditioned on several undertakings by Saada (e.g., $30,000 payment, stay‑away, consented visitation), some of which would become effective only after return.
Appellate outcome: Second Circuit affirmed the habitual‑residence finding but vacated the conditional‑return order because key protective undertakings were unenforceable or lacked sufficient guarantees; remanded for further proceedings to identify enforceable or adequately guaranteed ameliorative measures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Saada)	Defendant's Argument (Golan)	Held
Whether Italy is the child’s habitual residence	Child lived in Italy nearly his whole life; parental actions show shared intent to reside there	Golan intended to return to U.S.; declarations support U.S. habitual residence	Italy is the child’s habitual residence (affirmed)
Whether a grave risk of harm exists if child is returned	Saada did not contest the grave‑risk finding	Golan argued return would expose child to severe psychological harm from exposure to domestic violence	District Court found grave risk (not disturbed on appeal)
Whether the District Court may order return subject to undertakings that mitigate grave risk	Saada argued undertakings sufficiently protect the child	Golan argued undertakings are unenforceable and unreliable given Saada’s history	Conditional return based on largely unenforceable undertakings is improper; such undertakings are generally disfavored
Appropriate remedy when undertakings are unenforceable	Saada sought return with conditions; urged court to rely on comity and foreign courts	Golan urged denial of return absent enforceable protections	Court remanded to determine enforceable or adequately guaranteed ameliorative measures (vacated conditional return)

Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) (Hague Convention returns child to country of habitual residence unless exceptions apply)
Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240 (2d Cir. 1999) (district courts may consider ameliorative measures and have broad equitable discretion)
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) (declining return where foreign authorities could not protect children)
Baran v. Beaty, 526 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (courts may issue conditional return orders but cannot enforce foreign‑country performance)
Guzzo v. Cristofano, 719 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2013) (habitual‑residence inquiry is fact dependent though legal conclusion reviewed de novo)
Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review principles in Hague Convention cases)
Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (shared parental intent central to habitual‑residence analysis)
Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007) (ordering return with feckless undertakings is worse than denying return)
Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2000) (grave risk can be mitigated by undertakings only when guarantees of performance exist)
Danaipour v. McLarey, 286 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (conditioning return on foreign court action raises comity concerns; courts may nonetheless seek foreign protective orders when practicable)