Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

GOLAN v. SAADA 

Opinion of the Court 

requirements set forth in the Convention and ICARA.  The 
Second Circuit’s rule, by instructing district courts to order
return “if at all possible,” improperly elevated return above
the Convention’s other objectives.  Blondin I, 189 F. 3d, at 
248.  The Convention does not pursue return exclusively or
at all costs.  Rather, the Convention “is designed to protect 
the  interests  of  children  and  their  parents,”  Lozano,  572 
U. S., at 19 (ALITO, J., concurring), and children’s interests 
may  point  against  return  in  some  circumstances.    Courts 
must remain conscious of this purpose, as well as the Con-
vention’s  other  objectives  and  requirements,  which  con-
strain courts’ discretion to consider ameliorative measures 
in at least three ways.

First,  any  consideration  of  ameliorative  measures  must 
prioritize the child’s physical and psychological safety.  The 
Convention explicitly recognizes that the child’s interest in 
avoiding  physical  or  psychological  harm,  in  addition  to
other interests, “may overcome the return remedy.”  Id., at 
16 (majority opinion) (cataloging interests).8  A court may 
therefore  decline  to  consider 
imposing  ameliorative 
measures  where  it  is  clear  that  they  would  not  work  be-
cause the risk is so grave.  Sexual abuse of a child is one 

—————— 

8 The explanatory report for the Convention, which is “recognized by 
the  [Hague]  Conference  as  the  official  history  and  commentary  on  the 
Convention and is a source of background on the meaning of the provi-
sions  of  the  Convention,”  supports  this  understanding.    51  Fed.  Reg.
10503.  The explanatory report describes that the general “interest of the
child in not being removed from its habitual residence,” the foundation 
for the general return principle, “gives way before the primary interest
of any person in not being exposed to physical or psychological danger or 
being placed in an intolerable situation.”  1980 Conférence de La Haye
de  droit  international  privé,  Enlèvement d’enfants,  E.  Pérez-Vera,  Ex-
planatory Report, in 3 Actes et documents de la Quatorzième session, p.
433,  ¶29  (1982).    This  Court  has  repeatedly  referenced  the  report  in 
Hague Convention cases, without “decid[ing] whether this Report should
be given greater weight than a scholarly commentary.”  Abbott v. Abbott, 
560 U. S. 1, 19 (2010); see, e.g., Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U. S. ___, ___, 
n. 2 (2020) (slip op., at 8, n. 2).