Saturday, June 20, 2009

Sean And David Goldman Ruling in Brazil

Reading the news and looking over the latest developments with Sean and his father, David Goldman, I am even further entrenched in my opinion that the Brazilian step-father and his supporters are simply manipulating the situation to gain advantage.

David Goldman can now have Sean effectively live with him during the week - from Monday morning through to Saturday evening.

Fantastic news - what a brilliant win for David ... err, NOT!

The catch is he has to do all of this in Brazil while David lives in New Jersey, USA.

In other words this is a completely BS court ruling that gives David and Sean everything and gives them NOTHING.

The step-father is clearly doing everything possible to manipulate proceedings including the 11th hour appeal which retained Sean in Brazil when he was set to get on a plane and go home with his dad.

The psychologist who evaluated Sean, and turns out to be paid for by the step-father, claims visitation is not working well for Sean - so how does Sean seeing Dad in Brazil help him? Why would it not be better for visitation to take place in New Jersey and say, step-father take Sean in his custody to America to facilitate reunification?

Probably because as soon as Sean steps foot on US soil he'll be in his father's care faster than you can say, "Uncle Sam" and certainly faster than you can say,"Corned Beef from Brazil".

How about the child support issue?

David Goldman - what a barsteward!

Not one dime paid in child support!

Put that man up against a wall and shoot him for not supporting his kid - abducted to a foreign country which refuses to obey international law, and refuses to return a child to his rightful and lawful parent who happens to be the only one left alove.

Oh, and meanwhile that parent has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through this because the same Brazilian legal system which has failed so utterly and completely, has fuelled a situation where as far as legal costs and all the other ancillary costs of international child abduction just become one great big money pit - I know, $450,000 and counting for Emily.

Abductors should not be rewarded for their behavior and David Goldman is absolutely right when he said,

"Can you take someone's child to another country and then expect the parent to support you in the abduction of the child?"

Actually he is also wrong - the practical reality is, "Yes!", your child can be abducted to a foreign country and youare expected to pay the abductor to support your child.

That's one reason I was assessed by JudgeDoyle in Florida for $30,000 in back child support after Emily was abducted in 2003 - just to go along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent trying to find her and bring her home - I think Judge Doyle was trying to say, "Go away" or something like that.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I disagree!
It has been my experience that when a court considers returning a child to the left-behind parent, it does so by initially 'preparing' the child for that reunion by enforcing the child and long-lost parent to actually spend time together.
I have seen children who refused to return home after long-term abduction, change their minds entirely after spending enforced time with their left-behind parent; and having seen this child's current views - that he wishes to remain in Brazil - I'm hoping 'the system' has made this Order to allow for such a change of mind. This baby doesn't know his Daddy; probably doesn't even speak the same language nor even truly know who he is.
It's taken a long time to get to this current situation; surely just a little longer to allow the child to get to know his Daddy properly - and to WANT to be with him when asked again - won't be wasted?

Emily's Dad said...

I think we are singing from the same hymn book.

The issue is however, who is paying for this to happen and if you are correct, and I suspect you are, what is the timeline for this - an open ended order is extremely difficult to deal with - as I can attest to my own experience (it cost me my job having to remain for reunification visitation after Emily had been found when she was missing and endangered).

I deviate from the logic you are subscribing to because unless such an order has a definite timeline after which a return decision will be made, unless there is provision for the costs of the parent involved, David Goldman in this instance, there is a very real danger the whole edifice collapses and at the very least there is delay - what happens if the judge turns around after seeing such a "custody" order as working and makes it permanent or because David wishes to return home to New Jersey the court then takes the view, "OK well the father isn't that interested in custody after all!" and reverts back to step-dad?

All of these things are possible as well and meanwhile, the retaining party still have a significant advantage and may very well win the child back.

Again, I agree with your position right up until the point where there is no definite "plan" being implemented by the court but a "wait and see what happens" attitude.

In addition, if this is a Hague case - none of these issues should even be considered - they are custody issues not related to jurisdictional issues falling under the Hague Convention and therefore "summary return" should be implemented - after all, I am sure there are a bunch of child psychologists in New Jersey.

Thank you for the reasoned comment - more please and contact me on my email if you will - karl4work@gmail.com

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

There appears much 'confusion' here!
I believe this child 'established new habitual residence' one year after being taken to Brazil; so this case was no longer a Hague Convention case and comes under local custody law.
If it IS still a Hague Convention case legally, then there has to be a look at "psychological or physical harm" from returning a child to a parent he no longer knows.
In any event - whether Hague or 'custody' - the interests of the child are paramount - and again I would ask, what risk of making a mistake by sending a baby to a Daddy/country he knows/remembers/cares little about...unless the child and Daddy have rebuilt their relationship?
It is neither the child nor the Daddy's fault that their relationship was broken-down by his abduction; but offered the opportunity to rebuild that relationship - with even the slightest possibility of it ending in the required 'return' Order - who would demand a time-limit with so much at stake?
In the three matters I previously referred to - court-Ordered visitation was held a) over one year (three x 4-week visits); b) over two years (four x 2-week visits) and c) over eighteen months (two x one-week visits). All of the 'isolated' parent's were mothers whose absence from home (South America) could have resulted in them losing their jobs and becoming unemployed as their children's sole providers. Some of their living costs were picked-up by UK Taxpayers - through Legal Aid but living costs were money 'boorrowed' from family/friends. Two of the three received eventual 'return' Orders for their abducted children.
The third child was re-abducted to another country and that isolated parent, sadly, 'lost' her child after five years of fighting - with the abductor successfully 'forum-shopping' before a Judge in another Hague country.
This appears to be a wonderful opportunity for Mr Goldman to spend quality time with his son and for them to get to know each other all over again. If the bond is as strong as I suspect it will be, given time, then there is no reason why the abducting family cannot become a distant memory to this child; who will not then fret for what he's 'lost' when he gets on a plane with his Daddy back to the USA after a successful reunion and return Order.
Anything else, for this child, I believe (particularly with his mother already deceased and out of his life; him looking to 'lose' the 'other' father, siblings and extended family) would be an unimaginable cruelty and loss.
Whilst I sympathize that Mr Goldman will have his life disrupted for a short period of time; long-term, I believe Sean can only benefit from their time together: however long it takes. And please don't underestimate the 'other' families full 'use' of the psychology report that says Sean wants to stay with them. Of course he does, he's not known anyone else for years and the child's current mind-set has to be altered so he's happy to get on that plane to the US with his Daddy without any trauma.
I don't understand why this court decision is so difficult for everyone to see!?*

met said...

I'm no lawyer. I see it as the father (and son) being punished for the sins of the mother. The blame is ALL hers.

I always felt that the boy who was taken from his father in Cuba (i can't remember his name...) was rightfully returned to his father. I also had no problem with the force used in Miami to return the boy.

I hope Mr. Goldman can return with his son to the USA. If the step father wishes to visit on OUR soil then so be it. If HE cares that much for his step-son then he can uproot his family and get a visa and come HERE FOR 18 MONTHS.

goneaway said...

I think that all of this is a set up. We know how lawless Brazil can be. I truly think that David is going to go down there and something is going to happen. The "step-father" is an attorney that has so far thrown a wrench into everything. I think that our government needs to stop screwing around and get the child back to his father.

Jeanne M. Hannah said...

Dear "Anonymous"

Your firmly entrenched opinions about Dean Goldman are far from the mark by any factual and/or legal bases.

Dear Anonymous:

With respect to these comments . . . "There appears much 'confusion' here!
I believe this child 'established new habitual residence' one year after being taken to Brazil; so this case was no longer a Hague Convention case and comes under local custody law.
If it IS still a Hague Convention case legally, then there has to be a look at "psychological or physical harm" from returning a child to a parent he no longer knows.
In any event - whether Hague or 'custody' - the interests of the child are paramount - and again I would ask, what risk of making a mistake by sending a baby to a Daddy/country he knows/remembers/cares little about...unless the child and Daddy have rebuilt their relationship? . . . etc."

The Sean Goldman case would better be understood in light of the big picture — both factually and legally. See my blog article here.
http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?p=1562

Your thoughts are feelings fall far from the mark.

Jeanne M Hannah, Family Lawyer, Traverse City, Michigan

Anonymous said...

Dear Jeanne M Hannah,
OK, so now I have the 'factual and legal bases' to the Brazilian ruling from your blog.
The Hague Lawyer step-father DID try to utilize everything I mentioned and it was (rightly) thrown out.
So now let's NOT force the child to spend any time at all getting to know, feel comfortable with, begin to care about, understand or enjoy time with his long-lost Daddy - in the country where his Mummy was taken away from him.
Let's just "do an Elian"... Send in the troops...Rip that American kid right away from everything he's known, loved and cared about for years and not force his Dad to spend any time getting to know him in the place where he lives, where everything is familiar and where the child may in the future, hold wonderful memories of both Mummy AND Daddy. For this is "the American way" the World must adhere to - at any and all costs - irrelevant to the child's future sanity and/or well-being.
My only firmly entrenched opinions are that a) it would be so much kinder for this child to build memories IN BRAZIL with his Daddy that he can take home to the USA; and b) it would be nicer too if all of the grown-ups that have been the child's universe during his short life, look beyond their own 'win/lose ends' to do what's right for them all to maintain future relationships that will allow the siblings to know each other after they're separated.