Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

at  9.  Under  Article  13(b)  of  the  Convention,  however,  a 
court “is not bound to order the return of the child” if the 
court finds that the party opposing return has established
that return would expose the child to a “grave risk” of phys-
ical or psychological harm.  Id., at 10.  By providing that a 
court “is not bound” to order return upon making a grave-
risk finding, Article 13(b) lifts the Convention’s return re-
quirement, leaving a court with the discretion to grant or 
deny return. 

Nothing  in  the  Convention’s  text  either  forbids  or  re-
quires consideration of ameliorative measures in exercising 
this  discretion.  The  Convention  itself  nowhere  mentions 
ameliorative  measures.  Nor  does  ICARA,  which,  as  rele-
vant, instructs courts to “decide the case in accordance with 
the  Convention”  and  accordingly  leaves  undisturbed  the
discretion  recognized  in  the  Convention.    22  U. S. C. 
§9003(d).  The  longstanding  interpretation  of  the  Depart-
ment of State offers further support for the view that the
Convention  vests  a  court  with  discretion  to  determine 
whether to order return if an exception to the return man-
date  applies.  See  51  Fed.  Reg.  10510  (1986)  (explaining 
that  “a  court  in  its  discretion  need  not  order  a  child  re-
turned” upon a finding of grave risk); see also Abbott, 560 
U. S., at 15 (explaining that the Executive Branch’s inter-
pretation of the Convention “is entitled to great weight” (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted)).

Unable  to  point  to  any  explicit  textual  mandate  that 
courts consider ameliorative measures, Saada’s primary ar-
gument is that this requirement is implicit in the Conven-
tion’s command that the court make a determination as to 
whether a grave risk of harm exists.  Essentially, Saada ar-
gues that determining whether a grave risk of harm exists
necessarily requires considering whether any ameliorative 
measures are available. 

The question whether there is a grave risk, however, is
separate from the question whether there are ameliorative