On March 1, 2021, Mr. Saada filed his response to Ms. Golan’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she asked the court to answer “Whether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child not withstanding the grave risk finding.” Mr. Saada takes the view that “ameliorative measures” are simply one tool available to a court, in that a court always has the discretion to return a minor child, even if Respondent demonstrates an exception by the requisite burden of proof from ICARA. Mr. Saada argues that Ms. Golan is simply seeking to restrict the court’s discretion, thereby undermining the goals of the treaty. Specifically, in addressing why cert should not be granted, Mr. Saada says, “To be clear, none of the Circuits have established a blanket rule that it is inappropriate to consider ameliorative measures within the context of an Article 13(b) grave risk analysis. Absent a mandate to consider ameliorative measures, district courts are still free in their discretion to issue such measures as they deem appropriate. Petitioner has not argued otherwise.” “Regardless of the outcome, district courts would still be empowered to consider and issue ameliorative measures as appropriate in each case.”
