Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

GOLAN v. SAADA 

Opinion of the Court 

ingly, it is appropriate to follow the ordinary course and al-
low the District Court to apply the proper legal standard in
the first instance.  Cf. Monasky, 589 U. S., at ___–___ (slip 
op., at 16–17) (declining to follow the “[o]rdinar[y]” course 
of  ordering  remand  where  the  determination  in  question
was  nondiscretionary  and  there  was  no  “reason  to  antici-
pate that the District Court’s judgment would change on a
remand”).

Remand will as a matter of course add further delay to a
proceeding that has already spanned years longer than it 
should have.  The delay that has already occurred, however,
cannot be undone.  This Court trusts that the District Court 
will move as expeditiously as possible to reach a final deci-
sion without further unnecessary delay.  The District Court 
has ample evidence before it from the prior proceedings and 
has made extensive factual findings concerning the risks at 
issue.  Golan  argues  that  the  ameliorative  measures  or-
dered intrude too greatly on custodial determinations and
that they are inadequate to protect B. A. S.’ safety given the
District Court’s findings that Saada is unable to control or 
take  responsibility  for  his  behavior.    The  District  Court 
should determine whether the measures in question are ad-
equate  to  order  return  in  light  of  its  factual  findings  con-
cerning the risk to B. A. S., bearing in mind that the Con-
vention sets as a primary goal the safety of the child. 

* 

* 

* 

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for 
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.