Plain-English summary
Court rules judges need not exhaust all possible safeguards before refusing to return a child under Hague Convention’s ‘
The Supreme Court unanimously held that once a court finds returning a child would present a grave risk of physical or psychological harm under the Hague Convention, the court is not categorically required to consider every conceivable protective measure before denying the child's return. The Court vacated and remanded the Second Circuit decision in Golan v. Saada for further proceedings consistent with this rule.
Why this matters
The decision clarifies how U.S. courts handle urgent international child-abduction cases under the Hague Convention. It gives courts discretion to refuse return when serious harm is shown without forcing exhaustive consideration of every potential safeguard, which can speed decisions and better protect children at immediate risk.
Who may feel it
- Parents and children involved in international child-abduction cases under the Hague Convention
- Family and immigration courts that decide Hague Convention return petitions
- Attorneys handling international custody and abduction disputes
- Foreign countries and their courts that cooperate on child-return requests
Key questions
- Does the Hague Convention require U.S. courts to examine and reject all possible protective measures before refusing to return a child on the ground of grave risk of harm?