|
US-Brazil Child Abduction Dispute
This case reminds me a bit of the Elian Gonzales case, but in reverse. Inasmuch as I was not a Janet Reno fan, she got that decision correct to return the boy to his father. For those who don't remember much about it, if at all: Elian Gonzalez affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
With the shoe on the other foot, I'll quote an outline timeline because it will fully inform people enough to learn and speak with enough information about it.
Quote:
Timeline in the Sean Goldman custody battle:
Dec. 17, 1999: Bruna Bianchi and David Goldman marry in New Jersey after a globe-trotting romance that began when he was a model and she was a fashion design student in Milan.
May 25, 2000: Bianchi gives birth to a son, Sean. The couple lives in Red Bank, N.J., a shore town north of Asbury Park.
June 16, 2004: Goldman drops his son, wife and her parents at an airport for a two-week trip to her native Brazil. Within days of arriving there, Bianchi tells Goldman that she will not be coming back.
Sept. 3, 2004: Goldman asserts his rights as a left-behind parent under the Hague Convention on International Abductions, a treaty that addresses how to handle children taken across international borders without a parent's consent. By asserting his rights, Goldman is trying to gain custody of his son.
Oct. 5, 2005: A Brazilian court rules that Sean was wrongfully taken from the U.S., but that he will remain with his mother in Brazil.
Sept. 1, 2007: After being granted a divorce in Brazil, Bianchi marries Brazilian lawyer Joao Paulo Lins e Silva. Goldman says the divorce is not recognized in the U.S.
Aug. 22, 2008: Bianchi dies from complications of giving birth to a daughter. Sean remains in the care of Lins e Silva.
Feb. 5, 2009: U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican congressman from New Jersey, travels with Goldman to Brazil to help him gain custody of his son.
Feb. 9, 2009: Goldman meets with Sean for the first time since 2004. He says he had been trying for years to meet with his son; relatives of Lins e Silva dispute that.
March 2009: Both houses of Congress and the state senate in New Jersey pass resolutions calling for Sean's return. Also, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushes for the boy's return.
March 14, 2009: President Obama discusses the Goldman case with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
June 1, 2009: A federal judge rules that Sean will be handed over to his father on June 3. Under the order, the boy would split time between Goldman and his maternal grandparents, who have a home in New Jersey, for a month. Goldman would then get full custody.
June 2, 2009: Brazil's supreme court announces it will review the judge's decision. The announcement scuttles the planned handover. Sean remains with his stepfather.
June 4, 2009: Rep. Smith introduces a bill to suspend U.S. trade preferences with Brazil until Brazil complies with Hague Convention.
June 10, 2009: Brazil's supreme court is scheduled to discuss the Goldman case.
|
Brazilian Court Rules David Goldman Can Continue Efforts To Bring Son Sean Goldman Home To N.J. - cbs3.com
Quote:
Little Sean Goldman Stays in Brazil
Oscar Maldonado, Contributing Reporter
Public meeting of the Comissão de Direitos Humanos e Minorias to discuss the Sean Goldman case, back in April, photo by Fabio Rodrigues Pozzebom.
RIO DE JANEIRO - A custody battle case that has captured the attention of local and American press has once again made headlines. Sean Goldman, the 9 year-old boy that is at the center of a somewhat big international incident will remain in Brazil for now.
The decision came as a surprise last week (June 2nd), since a federal judge ordered the child’s return to the United States to join his father, former model David Goldman the previous day.
The judge’s decision ordered the delivery of Sean to the American Consulate in Rio for a smooth handover to his father. Also, the decision gave the right to Sean’s Brazilian family (his stepfather, grandparents and other relatives) to travel to the U.S. and accompany Sean while he adjusts to life in the country.
However, the procedure came to a halt when a Supreme Court call on the 3rd overruled the original mandate. It is argued that the sudden change of court decision came due to influence of the Brazilian Progressive Party. Also, intense family lobbying -that included street campaigns and other strategies- influenced the surprise ruling.
The Goldman case states that according to The Hague Convention resolutions, in the case of abducted children moved from one country to another; judiciary rulings must be sorted out and enforced by the country from which the person was abducted, not in the country of later residence. However, Sean’s Brazilian family argues that Sean’s adaptation in the U.S. wouldn’t be fit and that The Hague’s resolutions consider exceptions in cases of child well being. According to Sean grandmother, Sean will be better taken care of in Brazil.
Following her split with Goldman and while in Brazil, Sean’s mother Bruna Bianchi married Carioca lawyer João Paulo Lins e Silva. After Bruna’s death last year during labor complications for his second child, Lins became Sean’s caretaker. He has stated that it is in the child’s best interest the company, affection and love of his Brazilian family.
Bruna and David Goldman met in Italy while he was working as a model and she was studying arts. They married and soon moved to in the United States. Thus Sean was born in that country. Problems began when the boy came from the United States to Brazil in 2004 with her mother. The travel was supposed to be temporary, but Bruna and the child never returned to the United States.
The case has had important repercussions and it has even been discussed in high ranks of the Brazilian and U.S. governments. It has gone as far as David Goldman’s request to U.S. President Barack Obama for help with the case. Goldman expressed sore feeling regarding the Supreme Court ruling, saying the decision is “heartbreaking and disgraceful”.
On the Brazilian side, President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva spoke about the case, informally mentioning that The Hague’s resolutions should be respected. In Rio de Janeiro, the city where Sean is currently living, a local support base has formed in favor of the kid remaining in Brazil. Street manifestations with banners saying “Sean é brasileiro” (Sean is Brazilian) have been displayed in influential city quarters.
U.S. and Brazilian media have exploited the case heavily. There have been biased and side-taking positions in each country, with some Brazilian press pressing in favor of the family and some U.S. media outlets demanding the return of Sean home in New Jersey where his father lives. Also, major media powerhouses like The New York Times and O Globo have taken interest in following the development of the story.
|
Little Sean Goldman Stays in Brazil | The Gringo Times
It's clear to me that Brazil is violating the Hague Convention on International Abductions, of which the US and Brazil are signatories, and that the exceptions do not apply. The father acted promptly and the child IMO cannot be deemed 'settled' given his age and the entire circumstances, including the now-deceased mother and stepfather's wrongful actions and interferences to create a 'settled' argument. The fact that a Brazilian court ruled as early as 2005 that the child was 'settled' is simply farcical when the child was 5 years old, was abducted in 2004 and his father filed promptly for his return.
Moreover, it's a growing problem. According to the US State Department, parental abductions involving American children are rising with more than 1,000 new cases of American children taken by a parent to another country last year -- a 35 percent increase over 2007.
I also think US Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has proposed a well intended sanctions bill and even more direct focus could be done without the real or potential economic consequences that usually affect US businesses too, such as barring passports and all travel by minors to any nations deemed reguarly non-compliant and acting in bad faith with the Hague Convention or refusing to sign it and acting in bad faith on child abduction cases.
Of course, the US also should follow the same principles in return. Otherwise, what goes around comes around.
__________________
Last edited by O'Sullivan Bere; 06-20-2009 at 01:28 PM.
|
06-20-2009
Linear Mode
