Golan v. Saada (20-1034)

argument 20-1034

Golan v. Saada

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 19m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in Golan v. Saada?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case twenty ten thirty four, Golan versus Sada. Ms. King?

Unknown 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, I may it please the Court. The Hague Convention provides that a court is not bound to return a child once the grave risk exception is met. The district court here, after finding grave risk to this child, was operating under an incorrect rule of law that is, the Second Circuit's requirement that courts must examine the full range of potential amuletive measures and return the child if at all possible. That requirement should be overturned for four reasons. It's not found in the text of the Convention or its implementing legislation. It runs counter to the Convention's purposes and framework, which emphasise expeditious proceedings, the safety of the child, and not getting entangled in custody matters.

Unknown 0:56

It's contrary to the long standing views of the State Department, and no other signatory nation has adopted that interpretation of this treaty. If this court agrees with us, what remains is how best to resolve this case. In our view, a reversal is warranted. It was three years ago today that the district court made its grave risk finding. safe and swift resolution then would have allowed the child to remain in the U.S. in the interim, while the custody proceedings deal with the complex family issues at this uh in this case, including the implications of Mr. Sada's sustained and horrific abuse. But the district court was forced by the Second Circuit to take a lengthy detour, which entangled itself in custody matters, forced the parties to obtain an Italian court order without investigating the effectiveness of that order.

Unknown 1:52

That process and the results are inconsistent with the Convention. At once far too long, far too entangled, and at the same time not robust and The child here is almost six years old. He has spent the vast majority of his life in legal limbo. Reversal provides the safe and swift closure he deserves. I welcome the court's questions.

John G. Roberts 2:18

Y your position is that uh the district court should not have been required to consider ameliorative efforts, right? That's correct, Your Honor. But would it be necessarily an abuse of discretion if he chose to do so?

Unknown 2:34

It depends on the manner in which that consideration uh might take place. Uh our position is that the discretion to consider amulative measures is provided by the convention, but is also limited by the convention. So if a consideration of amulet measures takes too long or entangles the court in custody matters or is is somehow inconsistent with the convention on other grounds, uh that would be an abuse of discretion.

John G. Roberts 3:01

Okay, but if it was something pretty you know, cut and dried and very simple, I mean the the grave risk is that uh you know, his house is next new too next to a nuclear w waste dump. And he says, Well I'm I'm moving in two weeks, you know, here's the agreement. Th that is an ameliorative condition that the judge can take into account.

Unknown 3:20

Well, it it depends on the stage of the case. Uh at the grave risk determination phase, the the judge can certainly take into account whatever evidence the parties submit uh to to the court. Um after determining that a grave risk exists and you move to uh a remedy stage uh and consider emulative measures, in the case where the grave risk is straightforward and simple, easy to identify and easy to resolve. Then certainly it makes sense that the court does have discretion to consider the easy solutions and to uh consider return uh subject to those solutions. But that is in the discretion of the court. The way you just framed the inquiry, Ms. King, is like well first we decide whether there's a grave risk.

Unknown 4:02

And then we see whether there's anything that we can do about it. But is it i is that necessarily the right way to frame the the the issue? I mean how do you decide really whether there's a grave risk without thinking about ameliorative measures at at that stage. I mean is this really a two step inquiry or should we think about ameliorative measures in order to determine whether there's a grave risk?