Publication Date



This Note provides a critical analysis of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Golan v. Saada--a case setting precedent in the area of international child abduction by biological parents. It argues that the Supreme Court oversteps the presiding law in the field through the use of discretionary ameliorative measures. These ameliorative measures do not show evidence of protecting children from grave risk, directly usurp underlying custody proceedings, and hinder expeditious procedures, all of which are required by law in international child abduction cases. Additionally, this Note compares the European Union's approach to ameliorate analysis. Lastly this Note provides a future plan for ameliorative analysis that follows the presiding law and ensures strict compliance.

First Page