This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Golan v. Saada is a child‑custody dispute under the Hague Convention in which the district court granted Saada's petition.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated that judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Background and question before the Court
Petitioner Narkis Golan, a United States citizen, married respondent Isacco Saada, an Italian citizen, in Italy and they have a son, B. A. S., born in 2016.
Golan filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking an order to return B. A. S. to Italy under the Hague Convention.
Justice Kagan asked whether the grave‑risk exception requires courts to consider ameliorative measures before deciding to return a child.
What each side argues
Saada’s Position
Saada argues that determining whether a grave risk of harm exists must include consideration of any ameliorative measures that are available.
According to Saada, he contends that this requirement is implicit in the Hague Convention’s command that the court determine whether a grave risk of harm exists.
According to Saada, saada points to the practice of other signatory countries, such as the United Kingdom, to support the view that consideration of ameliorative measures is required.
Golan (via Ms. King) Position
According to Karen R. King, Ms. King states that once the grave‑risk exception is met, the Hague Convention does not bind a court to return the child.
Ms. King argues that after a finding of grave risk, courts have discretion either to deny the petition for return or to grant it subject to ameliorative measures.
According to Ms. King, this is the first case in which a mother has satisfied the high evidentiary standard for the grave‑risk exception.
Amicus Brief (Blondin) Position
According to Blondin amicus, the Blondin amicus brief criticizes the grave‑risk process for requiring expert testimony, arguing that it causes delays and prolongs cases.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether the two‑step framework—first deciding grave risk, then considering ameliorative measures—is the correct way to frame the issue.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito expressed a “threshold problem” in understanding the statute and the parties’ interpretation of it.
Justice Gorsuch asked whether any party disagreed with the arguments presented.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts inquired how the consideration of ameliorative measures should be described in this case.
Justice Sotomayor asked what mechanism exists for a court to implement such considerations.
What the Court decided
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The district court had previously granted Saada's petition after a nine‑day bench trial.
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 30182b5365593ca1e871-r1-6779fe44e8632209.pdforal argument transcript
- 46465046aa017239b52f-r1-0b686ce3baeceade.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.