Golan v. Saada

Supreme Court of the United States · 2022 · Family Law

596 U.S. 666 (2022)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family LawHague Conventiongrave riskICARAameliorative measuresundertakingsinternational child abductionreturn remedy

Facts

Narkis Golan and Isacco Saada lived in Milan, Italy, with their son, B. A. S., during the first two years of his life. The District Court found that Saada repeatedly abused Golan physically, psychologically, emotionally, and verbally, often in front of B. A. S., and that exposure to this domestic violence harmed the child and created a grave risk of harm if he were returned to Italy. Golan kept B. A. S. in the United States after traveling there for a wedding, and Saada filed a petition under the Hague Convention and ICARA seeking the child's return. The District Court ordered return after identifying protective measures, including later measures backed by Italian court orders and social services supervision.

Issue

Once a court finds under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention that returning a wrongfully removed child would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm, must the court examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying return? More specifically, was the Second Circuit correct in imposing a categorical rule requiring district courts to independently consider the full range of such measures?

Rule

Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention gives a court discretion to grant or deny return after finding that return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. The Convention and ICARA do not categorically require courts to consider all possible ameliorative measures before denying return, but if a court considers such measures, that consideration must be guided by the Convention's requirements: prioritizing the child's safety, avoiding intrusion into custody merits, and acting expeditiously.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a Hague Convention return proceeding in federal court in Seattle, Maya Levin proves by clear and convincing evidence that returning her six-year-old daughter to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of psychological harm because the child has repeatedly witnessed severe violence by Nolan Price against Maya. Nolan proposes no protective conditions and argues the judge must independently investigate every possible safeguard before denying return.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. Once the court finds grave risk under Article 13(b), it is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying return. The Convention gives the court discretion to grant or deny return, and nothing in the Convention or ICARA imposes a duty to search out every conceivable safeguard on the court's own initiative.