The Supreme Court Got at Least One Thing Right This Term
The Supreme Court's ruling in 'Golan v. Saada' will have the biggest impact on victims of domestic violence, who are the most common respondents in the Hague Convention's "grave of risk of harm" cases.
July 22, 2022 at 02:10 PM
7 minute read
On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that in cases under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), once a finding is made that returning a child to a parent residing in a foreign country would expose the child to a "grave risk of harm," the court may refuse to return the child without considering whether any "ameliorative measures" may be implemented in that foreign country to mitigate the risk of harm. Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. ___ (2022). This decision brings to an end a long-term split among the U.S. federal circuit courts, where some courts required a mandatory consideration of ameliorative measures post finding of the grave risk of harm and others expressly refused to do so. Most significantly, for the first time, the Supreme Court explicitly held that "the Convention sets as a primary goal the safety of the child." In doing so, the Supreme Court rejected the long-held view of some federal circuit courts that the Convention "pursue[s] return exclusively or at all costs."
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 such return would expose the child to a "grave risk of physical or psychological harm." Neither the Convention nor the implementing legislation of any signatory country contains any additional requirements for the application of this "grave risk of harm" defense. Nevertheless, prior to Golan v. Saada, several U.S. federal circuit courts, including the Second Circuit, from which this appeal was taken, required that the party asserting the "grave risk of harm" defense also prove that no ameliorative measures could be put into place to ensure adequate protection of the child in her country of habitual residence.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute read'Where Were the Lawyers?' Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250