Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

GOLAN v. SAADA 

Opinion of the Court 

measures that could mitigate that risk.  That said, the ques-
tion whether ameliorative measures would be appropriate
or effective will often overlap considerably with the inquiry 
into whether a grave risk exists.  See Simcox v. Simcox, 511 
F. 3d 594, 607–608 (CA6 2007) (explaining that the appro-
priateness  and  utility  of  ameliorative  measures  correlate
with the gravity of the risk to the child).  In many instances,
a court may find it appropriate to consider both questions 
at once.  For example, a finding of grave risk as to a part of 
a  country  where  an  epidemic  rages  may  naturally  lead  a 
court simultaneously to consider whether return to another
part of the country is feasible.  The fact that a court may
consider ameliorative measures concurrent with the grave-
risk determination, however, does not mean that the Con-
vention imposes a categorical requirement on a court to con-
sider  any  or  all  ameliorative  measures  before  denying  re-
turn once it finds that a grave risk exists.7 

Under the Convention and ICARA, district courts’ discre-
tion to determine whether to return a child where doing so
would pose a grave risk to the child includes the discretion 

—————— 

7 Saada argues that the approach of other signatory countries, includ-
ing the United Kingdom, supports the position that consideration of ame-
liorative measures is required.  See, e.g., In re E, [2011] UKSC 27 ¶52
(stating that the focus of the return inquiry should be on the sufficiency 
of protective measures where there are disputed allegations of domestic 
violence).  The Hague Conference on Private International Law’s Guide 
to Good Practice, which the Hague Conference issued to encourage con-
sistent application of the grave-risk exception internationally, also offers
some support for this position, explaining that courts generally should 
consider  “the  circumstances  as  a  whole,  including  whether  adequate
measures of protection are available.”  1980 Child Abduction Convention: 
Guide to Good Practice, Pt. VI, Art. 13(1)(b), p. 31, ¶41 (2020).  The Con-
vention itself, however, leaves contracting states free to require or not 
require  consideration  of  ameliorative  measures,  and  consistent  with
most signatory countries outside the European Union, see, e.g., Arthur 
& Secretary, Dept. of Family & Community Servs. and Anor, [2017] Fam-
CAFC 111 ¶69 (Austl.), Congress has not chosen to require such consid-
eration.