“These are basically the two most important cases to be decided by any court in the world regarding this treaty.”
“The story is that if the court finds there is a grave risk of harm for the child, the court should not send the child back, full stop.”
-Michael Scharf,
BakerHostetler Professor of Law,
School of Law,
Case Western Reserve University,
Frederick K. Cox International Law Center
On Tuesday, March 22, I am excited to have the rare opportunity to return to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) with another monumental case, Golan v. Saada.
Golan regards an international treaty, specifically, the 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Treaty”). I and my Family Law team at Zashin & Rich, previously represented the Respondent in the seminal case, Monasky v. Taglieri, throughout that case and before the Supreme Court. The Monasky case was the fourth Hague Treaty case SCOTUS ever heard, and certainly the most important, as it dealt with the meaning and application of its threshold issue, “Habitual Residence” of a child.
In Golan, the fifth case SCOTUS will hear on this international treaty, the fundamental issue is also of exceptional importance, the 13(b) Grave Risk of Harm exception to a Habitual Residence return order.
More broadly, the Grave Risk of Harm issues in this case concern a lower court’s ameliorative measures order, and domestic violence, and whether or not a child should return to his Habitual Residence despite a Grave Risk of Harm finding under Article 13(b).
Generally speaking, a Grave Risk of Harm finding should prevent a child’s return to the place of his or her habitual residence. In this case, the the Federal District Court in the 2nd Circuit (New York) were legally bound to, and have tried to, create ways to make a return “safe” for Ms. Golan and her child. I personally, and other legal scholars believe (as opposed to our particular position in the Golan case, lawyers have to be flexible!), that there is no safe way to return a child after a Grave Risk finding has been found. In fact, to return a child after a Grave Risk of Harm finding would be both contrary to the explicit language and the spirit of the Hague Treaty.
Others, like those in the 2nd Circuit and those who support its findings, believe that it is a court’s duty to find any reasonable way to return a child whose Habitual Residence has been determined to be outside of the United States. Textually, the basis for this belief is baffling, because there is no language in the Hague Treaty itself that suggests such an interpretation. Also, traditional methods for interpreting international legal documents, like treaties, support my interpretation.
In addition, the United States requires the burden of proof to find Habitual Residence its the lowest standard, a “preponderance of the evidence.” To establish a Grave Risk of Harm, however, which Ms. Golan has established, the United States uniquely requires a higher standard, the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. Therefore, after having established this higher burden, the Respondent, our client, a domestic violence victim, who has no money and is being represented pro bono, is being asked again, to surmount yet another legal challenge, i.e., in layman’s terms, that the ameliorative measures the 2nd Circuit imposed are impermissible under the treaty. Which, of course, is odd because the Hague Treaty makes no mention of an exception to Grave Risk of Harm in the first place!!!
So, I ask, how many burdens does someone who has already made her case of Grave Risk of Harm have to face?
Is this justice?
In Golan, the ameliorative measures that the 2nd Circuit ordered to make the child’s return “safe,” are simply impractical, unenforceable, unfair, dangerous, and create an intolerable and unconscionable situation for the child and his mother.
On top of this, the federal courts have seemingly failed to consider that when this case started the child at issue was 2 years old and now the child is 6 years old. The father has not paid child support, and the child has been in America for 4 years. Moreover, the child, like his mother, speaks no Italian.
Moreover, as the parties have a Jewish religious, and not a secular, marriage. The husband’s failure to give our client, Ms. Golan, a Jewish religious divorce, a GET, prevents her from getting remarried or from having traditionally Jewish children. He is what is known as a “GET denier.” This fact is a violation of her human rights. An individual is allowed to practice the religion she chooses, without interference, fear, and coercion. She is also allowed to constitue her family as she wishes. Ms. Golan is being denied these rights (start here: Article 16, Universal Declaration of Human Rights). What the husband does do, through counsel, is use the GET as leverage; as a means of coercion. A GET given under such pressure, however, invalidates the GET in the first place. So his offer to give Ms. Golan a GET conditionally is merely a self-serving ploy (for example see his attorney’s comments in the article attached).
At the beginning of this post I set forth two quotations from world-renowned international legal scholar, Professor Michael Scharf, which are contained in the article herein. As the quotes attest, the Golan and Monasky cases are of monumental jurisprudential importance. They will be cited in judicial decisions concerning the issues of Habitual Residence and Grave Risk of Harm, in the United States, and surely, throughout the world.
I, and my team at Zashin & Rich, are proud to be at the absolute cutting edge of the most important legal issues internationally, in the United States, and throughout Ohio.