Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

example  of  an  intolerable  situation.    See  51  Fed.  Reg. 
10510.  Other physical or psychological abuse, serious ne-
glect,  and  domestic  violence  in  the  home  may  also  consti-
tute  an  obvious  grave  risk  to  the  child’s  safety  that  could
not readily be ameliorated.  A court may also decline to con-
sider imposing ameliorative measures where it reasonably 
expects that they will not be followed.  See, e.g., Walsh  v. 
Walsh, 221 F. 3d 204, 221 (CA1 2000) (providing example 
of parent with history of violating court orders).

Second,  consideration  of  ameliorative  measures  should 
abide by the Convention’s requirement that courts address-
ing return petitions do not usurp the role of the court that 
will adjudicate the underlying custody dispute.  The Con-
vention and ICARA prohibit courts from resolving any un-
derlying custody dispute in adjudicating a return petition. 
See Art. 16, Treaty Doc., at 10; 22 U. S. C. §9001(b)(4).  Ac-
cordingly, a court ordering ameliorative measures in mak-
ing a return determination should limit those measures in 
time and scope to conditions that would permit safe return,
without  purporting  to  decide  subsequent  custody  matters
or weighing in on permanent arrangements.9 

Third, any consideration of ameliorative measures must 
accord with the Convention’s requirement that courts “act
expeditiously  in  proceedings  for  the  return  of  children.” 

—————— 

9 The  Department  of  State  expressed  this  view  in  a  1995  letter  to  a 
United  Kingdom  official,  emphasizing  that  any  ameliorative  measures 
ordered to facilitate return “should be limited in scope and further the 
Convention’s goal of ensuring the prompt return of the child” and that 
measures that “address in great detail issues of custody, visitation, and 
maintenance”  would  be  “questionable”  given  the  Convention’s  reserva-
tion of custody issues for resolution in the country of the child’s habitual
residence.  App. to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae on Pet. for 
Cert.  2a  (Letter  from  C.  Brown,  Assistant  Legal  Adviser  for  Consular 
Affairs,  U. S.  Dept.  of  State,  to  M.  Nicholls,  Lord  Chancellor’s  Dept., 
Child Abduction Unit, United Kingdom (Aug. 10, 1995)).