Golan v. Saada

Narkis Golan and Isacco Saada, an estranged couple, had a son, B.A.S., in Italy. The relationship involved domestic abuse, and in 2018, Saada brought the child to the United States. Golan filed a petition under the Hague Convention seeking the child’s return to Italy. A federal district court found that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm due to the violence but ordered return with ameliorative measures, such as a protective order. The Second Circuit affirmed, ruling that courts must exhaust all possible ameliorative measures before denying return. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. On June 15, 2022, the Court unanimously reversed, holding that the Convention’s text does not mandate consideration of ameliorative measures; courts have discretion to weigh them but are not required to do so. The case was remanded.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the Hague Convention does not impose a mandatory duty on courts to consider ameliorative measures; such consideration is discretionary. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Whether a court is obligated under the Hague Convention to consider and impose ameliorative measures to mitigate a grave risk of harm before denying a child’s return to their habitual residence.

The ruling clarified the “grave risk” exception in Hague Convention cases, granting trial courts greater flexibility in evaluating protective measures. It underscored the primacy of child safety while avoiding mandatory procedural hurdles, thereby shaping international family law practice and the handling of cross-border custody disputes.