The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention) requires a signatory state promptly to return a child "wrongfully" removed by one parent without the consent of the other parent to that state from another signatory state where the child habitually resided. The Hague Convention, however, expressly allows a court of a country to which a child was removed to refuse to return the child to her country of habitual residence if doing so would expose the child to a "grave risk of physical or psychological harm."

In the United States, this "grave risk of harm" defense has been upheld in two situations. First, it has been recognized in cases where the return would put the child in imminent danger, such as returning the child to a zone of war, famine or disease. Second, the defense has been recognized in cases of serious abuse or neglect, or extraordinary emotional dependence, where the courts in the country of habitual residence cannot or will not give the child adequate protection. Many cases in the second category arise from a backdrop of domestic violence, when one parent flees the home country with the child, claiming domestic abuse by the other parent. The Hague Convention places a high burden of proof on the parent asserting the grave risk of harm defense, requiring that "grave risk" to the child be proven by clear and convincing evidence.