What is the current state of the law in the context of an Article 13(b) finding that a child has been sexually abused in the custody of an alleged victim?

We recognize that abuse exists on a spectrum depending on the form, frequency, and other features. See Simcox, 511 F.3d at 605; Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153, 162 (2d Cir. 2001). But an Article 13(b) grave risk of psychological harm finding does not automatically terminate further investigation into a reasonable alternative remedy. In fact, there is longstanding practice among our foreign counterparts, see Abbott, 560 U.S. at 1617, to order return of the children despite objections by the abducting parent in situations of physical or psychological harm or alternatively consider remedies to mitigate a grave risk of harm upon repatriation.^[8] The framework detailed above accommodates the fact-intensive nature that undergirds the fashioning of an alternative remedy upon an Article 13(b) finding and affords the district court the latitude to tailor it in light of more troubling factual scenarios.