Isacco Saada and Narkis Golan, a young Italian couple may have been in love when they first married, but it didn’t take long to spiral into nosedive of violence and aggression. Isacco was an abusive piece of shit to his lovely wife, often right in front of their adorable young son Bradley, harming her both physically and psychologically.

Narkis, having more than enough of Isacco’s shit, arranged a trip to the United States to visit family who lived here for a wedding—bringing young Bradley in tow.

Once her and Bradley were safely in the United States, Narkis opted to remain here, going to a shelter for abused women, to avoid returning to her abusive husband—for both her and her son’s safety.

While Isacco wasn’t accused of harming Bradley, it’s pretty common that a man who beats his wife, will also beat a child.

But, as you might expect because I’m writing about it, this creates some legal issues. The Hague Convention in 1994 established international rules to protect children in international adoptions. It encompassed a 1980 rule called The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which was largely created to prevent abusive husbands from taking an abused child away from the mother and out of the country, but because of poorly written rules, often was then used to force fleeing abused mothers to return their child to an abusive father who stayed home.

The point of the rule was that a child from a country such as Italy in this case, should have their custody determined by an Italian court. That no parent should gain an advantage by abducting their child and taking it abroad—making it more difficult for the other parent to win back custody.

However, the law did provide an exception in cases where the child was deemed to be in grave danger, if returned to the abusive parent.

Isacco Saada filed to have his son returned to Italy under these rules, and lower courts looking for ways to safely return Bradly to Italy as Hague rules seek to accomplish, looked at measures to ensure Bradley’s safety if returned, such as counseling, supervised visits, etc.

But Golan was like, “Nothing is going to make this piece of shit any less abusive to me, and if he’s abusive to me, he will eventually become abusive to our son. So fuck you and your measures, we’d like to remain in the United States—far away from this abusive asshole, please and thank you.”

After winning this case, the lower courts still looked to ways where Bradley could be returned to Italy, with rules to protect him against Isacco, but in an attempt to allow Italy to handle the issue instead of the United States.

The question for the court is pretty simple: do the courts have to mull over all possibilities to return Bradley to Italy and potentially Isacco, so long as they are deemed adequate to ensure his safety? Or can they simply decide that the grave risk to Bradley is too great, even if potential measures to ensure Bradley’s safety are brought up for consideration?

Karen King, counsel for the Narkis Golan opened by pointing out that the lower courts are basically fucking morons. The Hague certainly wants to keep children together with their families in their home countries, but they’re also keen to protect those same kids from abusive assholes.

Her argument is that the Hague basically says, “Return them, unless they’re in grave danger if returned.” But she thinks the lower court somehow read that as, “If there’s any possible measure any asshole can think of, that would help ensure the child’s safety, then the courts must consider returning them under those measures, but if you can’t see any method to ensure their safety, then and only then, can you deny their return.”

Counsel King was like, “I don’t know how any smart person could hear the respondent’s argument and not conclude those lower court justices are fucking idiots who apparently can’t fucking read. As further proof that they’re morons, I’d like to point out that there’s no other country in the fucking world that uses this interpretation.”

Counsel Frederick Liu, representing the United States, there to support Nardis Golan argued that the lower court, in their arguments suggested that the child should be returned “if at all possible.” Liu took umbrage with that shit.

He was like, “If at all possible” really favors the abusive father, not the potentially at risk kid. Who the fuck would be OK with that? The Hague rules certainly didn’t lay it out like that. They wrote language to protect the kid for a reason. Do we really think they thought jurisdictional arguments were more important than the safety of a fucking child?

For Saada, counsel Richard Min opened by arguing that the Hague convention clearly seeks to have the kid’s home country adjudicate custody hearings. As such, he wanted to be clear that this isn’t about asking whether his piece-of-shit client should get custody, but merely that Italy should be the ones to determine said custody.

His tactic is pathetic at best, but he was dealt a turd sandwich. He knows any argument suggesting his known-abusive father should get custody is a big old fucking loser. So focusing on the jurisdictional argument is the only path to victory, if there is one.

Of course, he conveniently leaves out that his father Isacco Balboa, is the only person in Italy that would take him in.

But forgetting all of that, he thinks that the United States, in agreement with all these other countries who were part of the Hague convention, should defer to Italy since we’re talking about an Italian boy.

They do that by determining if there are steps Italy can and will take to protect little Bradley—conveniently ignoring the obvious way to protect him; by leaving him in the United States.

He went on to point out that Italy already has measures in place to protect the child, so if the United States doesn’t send him back, they’re basically saying, “Go fuck yourself, Italy. We don’t trust you mafioso thugs.”

In final rebuttal, counsel King was like, “Did this motherfucker really say the Italian courts already put measures in place to protect young Bradley? They set some fucking court dates. That’s about fucking it. This asshole must be joking right now.

In a unanimous decision, the court decided that young Bradley’s safety was more important than his father’s right to have him returned to Italy. Once the courts determine that Bradley is in potentially grave danger, they’re not required to consider any and every thought on how to return him safely. If Isacco has proven he’s potentially a serious threat to his son, then the US isn’t obliged to return him to Italy or that piece of shit.

Sadly, Nardis Golan passed away from what the medical examiner referred to as a brain bleed. Her family however, suspects foul play. Bradley remains in custody of Nardis’ family in the United States while a court decides if he must be sent back to Italy to be with his father.

Hear oral arguments and or read about the case here at SCOTUSBlog and Oyez.