Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

GOLAN v. SAADA 

Opinion of the Court 

make possible the safe return of a child” before denying re-
turn due to grave risk, even if the party petitioning for the 
child’s return has not identified or argued for imposition of 
ameliorative measures.  Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, 
163, n. 11 (CA2 2001) (Blondin II).

The Second Circuit’s categorical requirement to consider
all ameliorative measures is inconsistent with the text and 
other express requirements of the Hague Convention. 

I 
A 

The Hague Convention “was adopted in 1980 in response 
to the problem of international child abductions during do-
mestic  disputes.”  Abbott  v.  Abbott,  560  U. S.  1,  8  (2010). 
One  hundred  and  one  countries,  including  the  United
States and Italy, are signatories.  Hague Conference on Pri-
vate Int’l Law, Convention of 25 Oct. 1980 on the Civil As-
pects  of  Int’l  Child  Abduction,  Status  Table,  https://www.
hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=24.
The Convention’s “core premise” is that “ ‘the interests of
children  . . .  in  matters  relating  to  their  custody’  are  best
served when custody decisions are made in the child’s coun-
try of ‘habitual residence.’ ”  Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U. S. 
___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 2) (quoting Convention Pream-
ble, Treaty Doc., at 7).  Accordingly, the Convention gener-
ally  requires  the  “prompt  return”  of  a  child  to  the  child’s 
country  of  habitual  residence  when  the  child  has  been 
wrongfully removed to or retained in another country.  Art. 
1(a), Treaty Doc., at 7; see also Art. 12, id., at 9.1  This re-
quirement  “ensure[s]  that  rights  of  custody  and  of  access 

—————— 

1 The Convention defines a “wrongful” removal or retention as one that 
breaches existing custody rights “under the law of the State in which the
child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or reten-
tion” if those rights “were actually exercised” or “would have been so ex-
ercised but for the removal or retention.”  Art. 3, Treaty Doc., at 7.