Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

GOLAN v. SAADA 

Opinion of the Court 

granted Saada’s petition for B. A. S.’ return.  It rejected Go-
lan’s argument that Saada could not be trusted to comply 
with  a  court  order,  expressing  confidence  in  the  Italian 
courts’ abilities to enforce the protective order.  The District 
Court additionally ordered Saada to pay Golan $150,000 to
facilitate B. A. S.’ return to Italy and to cover Golan’s and B.
A. S.’ living costs while they resettled.  The Second Circuit 
affirmed, concluding that the District Court did not clearly
err in determining that Saada likely would comply with the
Italian  protective  order,  given  his  compliance  with  other 
court  orders  and  the  threat  of  enforcement  by  Italian  au-
thorities of its order.  833 Fed. Appx. 829 (2020).

This Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Sec-
ond Circuit properly required the District Court, after mak-
ing a grave-risk finding, to examine a full range of possible 
ameliorative  measures  before  reaching  a  decision  as  to 
whether  to  deny  return,  and  to  resolve  a  division  in  the 
lower  courts  regarding  whether  ameliorative  measures 
must  be  considered  after  a  grave-risk  finding.6    595  U. S. 
___ (2021). 

II 
A 
“The interpretation of a treaty, like the interpretation of
a statute, begins with its text.”  Abbott, 560 U. S., at 10 (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted).  As described above, when 
“a child has been wrongfully removed or retained” from his 
country of habitual residence, Article 12 of the Hague Con-
vention  generally  requires  the  deciding  authority  (here,  a
district court) to “order the return of the child.”  Treaty Doc., 
—————— 

6 Compare In re Adan, 437 F. 3d 381, 395 (CA3 2006) (requiring con-
sideration of ameliorative measures); Gaudin v. Remis, 415 F. 3d 1028, 
1035 (CA9 2005) (same); Blondin II, 238 F. 3d 153, 163, n. 11 (CA2 2001) 
(same), with Acosta v. Acosta, 725 F. 3d 868, 877 (CA8 2013) (considera-
tion not required in all circumstances); Baran v. Beaty, 526 F. 3d 1340, 
1346–1352  (CA11  2008)  (same);  Danaipour v. McLarey,  386  F. 3d  289, 
303 (CA1 2004) (same).