Supreme Court Victory for Golan
The US Supreme Court states she doesn't have to send her son back to Italy just yet.
While the world waits for a decision in Dobbs V Jackson Women's Health Organization, the US Supreme Court has released its decision in several other cases.
This includes a decision in Golan V Saada.
Narkis Golan is a US citizen who was living in Italy with her son; her ex-husband, Isacco Golan, and his family are from Italy.
She went on a trip to the New York City with her son and decided not to return?
Why? It’s because her ex-husband was abusive. Below is an example of the abuse.
During her testimony, Narkis testified in part, “So, we started, and I told him, you know, it’s uncomfortable, let’s stop. Instead of stopping, he held my hand behind my back, I was on top, and he started pulling, like pushing, pushing really hard on me, and…and, it hurt so bad. I just wanted, you know, to stop.”
Despite the abuse, Narkis ran into international law under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
For a while, she and her son looked like they would be forced to live in Italy and continue.
Though most US courts acknowledged that her ex-husband was abusive, an appeals court still ordered her to return. Here is part of the US Supreme Court opinion.
Petitioner Narkis Golan, a United States citizen, married respondent Isacco Saada, an Italian citizen, in Italy, where they had a son, B. A. S., in 2016. In 2018, Golan flew with B. A. S. to the United States to attend a wedding and, instead of returning to Italy, moved into a domestic violence shelter with B. A. S. Saada thereafter timely filed a petition with the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking an order returning B. A. S. to Italy pursuant to the Hague Convention.
The District Court concluded that B. A. S. would face a grave risk of harm if returned to Italy, given evidence that Saada had abused Golan and that being exposed to this abuse harmfully affected B. A. S. The court, however, ordered B. A. S.’ return to Italy, applying Second Circuit precedent obligating it to “examine the full range of options that might make possible the safe return of a child” and concluding that ameliorative measures could reduce the risk to B. A. S. sufficiently to require his return. The Second Circuit vacated the return order, finding the District Court’s ameliorative measures insufficient. Because the record did not support concluding that no sufficient ameliorative measures existed, the Second Circuit remanded for the District Court to consider whether such measures, in fact, existed. After an examination over nine months, the District Court identified new ameliorative measures and again ordered B. A. S.’ return. The Second Circuit affirmed.
The US Supreme Court reversed course. Here is part of a Bloomberg article.
The boy at the heart of a custody dispute between his American mother and Italian father won’t have to be returned to Italy just yet, after the US Supreme Court sided with the woman over what’s required under an international treaty.
The ruling on Wednesday is the fifth on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction since 2010. The agreement is designed to prevent parents from gaming the system by absconding to a country with more favorable custody laws.
In 2020, the majority of the 185 children returned to the US for custody proceedings were done so under the Hague Convention.
In the unanimous ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor clarified that federal courts are not required to consider all possible ameliorative measures when refusing to return a child to their home country because it would put them at risk of physical or psychological abuse.
Check out my previous post on this case which includes an article from 2020 which was rejected: in part because the allegations Narkis made were too explosive.
