Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

Convention  and  ICARA.    The  Second  Circuit’s  rule  improperly  ele-
vated return above the Convention’s other objectives.  The Convention 
does not pursue return exclusively or at all costs.  Courts must remain 
conscious of all the Convention’s objectives and requirements, which 
constrain courts’ discretion to consider ameliorative measures.  First, 
the Convention explicitly recognizes that any consideration of amelio-
rative measures must prioritize the child’s physical and psychological
safety.  Second, consideration of ameliorative measures should abide 
by the Convention’s requirement that courts addressing return peti-
tions do not usurp the role of the court that will adjudicate the under-
lying  custody  dispute.    Third,  any  consideration  of  ameliorative 
measures must accord with the Convention’s requirement that courts 
“act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.”  A court 
therefore  reasonably  may  decline  to  consider  ameliorative  measures 
that  have  not  been  raised  by  the  parties,  are  unworkable,  draw  the 
court into determinations properly resolved in custodial proceedings, 
or risk overly prolonging return proceedings.  Pp. 11–15.

(c) In this case, the District Court made a finding of grave risk, but
never had the opportunity to inquire whether to order or deny return 
under the correct legal standard.  Accordingly, it is appropriate to al-
low the District Court to apply the proper legal standard in the first
instance,  see  Monasky  v.  Taglieri,  589  U. S.  ___,  ___.  The  District 
Court  should  determine  whether  the  measures  considered  are  ade-
quate to order return in light of the District Court’s factual findings 
concerning  the  risk  to  B. A. S.,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  Convention 
sets as a primary goal the safety of the child. Pp. 15–16. 

833 Fed. Appx. 829, vacated and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.