• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Washington, D.C.
  • melissa@mkfamily.law
  • (202) 713-5165
  • mkfamily.law
Family Law Across Borders

Family Law Across Borders

International Family Law Resources

  • About MKFL
  • Websites
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Events
  • Contact

Case Update (2021 Oct 28): Saada v. Golan; U.S. Government’s Brief on Cert Petition

Case Update (2021 Oct 28): Saada v. Golan; U.S. Government’s Brief on Cert Petition

October 29, 2021

On October 28, 2021, the U.S. Acting Solicitor General filed a brief in the case of Saada v. Golan, taking the position that the U.S. Supreme Court should grant Ms. Golan’s petition for writ of certiorari.

As a reminder, this case addresses whether a court must determine if there are “ameliorative measures” that would reduce an otherwise grave risk of harm to a child such that the court could allow the child’s return and protect the child from the harm that exists. This case has been up and down the 2nd Circuit a few times. Initially, Mr. Saada agreed to pay money, stay away from Ms. Golan, and pursue dismissal of criminal charges. The court, based on these undertakings, ordered the child returned to Italy. However, the 2nd Circuit partially vacated this order because the most important protective measures were unenforceable or “not otherwise accompanied by sufficient guarantees of performance.” On remand, the EDNY spent 9 months exploring the measures available to return the child to Italy safely, including speaking with the U.S. Department of State, a member of the International Hague Network of Judges, and examining an Italian court proceeding. On that basis, the court was satisfied with the measures that existed, and ordered the child returned again. Ms. Golan appealed, and the 2nd Circuit affirmed this second return order.

The Acting SG took the view that the Hague Abduction Convention allows, but does not require, a court to consider measures “that could ameliorate a grave risk of harm when determining whether to refrain from ordering the return of a child under Article 13(b).” Further, the 2nd Circuit’s “categorial requirement to consider – and even craft – a full range of ameliorative measures fails to adequately respect the Convention’s prohibition on making custody decisions when adjudicating a return petition and its emphasis on expeditious proceedings.” Requiring a consideration of ameliorative measures causes delays inconsistent with the Convention, according to the Acting SG.

In reality, there is no language in the treaty mandating a consideration of “ameliorative measures.” But, the treaty supports a judge using his or her discretion to return a child at any time – whether or not there is a grave risk, and whether or not there are “ameliorative measures” available. Some recent cases have lead to trial judges crafting return orders that include some rather interesting provisions, such as in Radu v. Shon where the court required the children be returned to Germany in the custody of their mother (meaning she is also mandated to return). It is unclear whether a court’s consideration of circumstances in the habitual residence (such as availability of shelters or social services), foreign court orders (already in place or being pursued, etc.), or other “ameliorative” measures causes delay, however. While these cases are intended to be expedited, expedition does not necessarily correlate with a court’s elimination of a robust considering of all relevant evidence and information in making its decision, and in exercising its discretion.

The Acting Solicitor General did argue that there exists a circuit split and that the Supreme Court should grant cert “to provide guidance to the lower courts that will enable them to exercise their discretion appropriately and promptly in resolving Convention cases.” It is unclear as to what guidance is envisioned, and how that guidance might actually differ from the guidance adopted by the 2nd Circuit in its requirement of ameliorative measures. It remains to be seen as to whether the Supreme Court will go beyond the question presented to it (i.e., whether this mandate is appropriate) into elaborating on what guidance courts should adopt in exercising their discretion.

Category iconabduction,  ameliorative measures,  Child Abduction,  Grave Risk,  Hague Abduction Convention,  protective measures,  undertakings

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 108 others, and get a notification to our new posts right on your inbox.

We promise we’ll never spam! Only notifications of new posts.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The use of the name MK Family Law is protected as are the logo and content of this website. The information is provided by MK Family Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

© 2023 · MK Family Law · All Rights Reserved · Developed by RDK

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Attorney Advertising