At 3:33 PM today, the Associated Press reported that Brazil's Supreme Court has delayed the return of Sean Goldman to his father. Unfortunately, David Goldman had already flown to Brazil in hopes of recovering his son, who has been missing from the United States since 2004.
Today's ruling by Justice Marco Aurelio Mello suspended yesterday's judgment by a lower court ordering that David Goldman be given custody of his son, Sean. Thus, Sean will remain in Brazil until the court decides whether his own testimony should be heard in the case. Unfortunately, the court is about to go into recess and nothing will happen until sometime in February.
A very informative timeline has been furnished by MSNBC. You can see it here. The AP report is here. The Reuters report from the NY Times is here.
The Hague Convention, where a court responds appropriately, considers jurisdiction and does not permit a "best interest" analysis (and therefore doesn't permit an analysis based upon a continuing custodial environment). It is true, however, that there is an exception where "the child is acclimated to the new country." In this case, that exception was applied when Bruna used it early on. However, now we have a second kidnapper -- the stepfather -- who even under Brazilian law, has no right to custody. In Brazil and in New Jersey, when a custodial parent dies, the non-custodial parent is entitled to custody. Neither Lins e Silva (the stepfather) nor the maternal grandparents have the right to use this exception to return under the Convention.
Brazil is an outlaw in this case. I except Judge Pinto, who wrote responsibly in two separate opinions from my general condemnation of the manner in which Brazil has dealt with this case. http://tinyurl.com/lsfa8k
Posted by: Jeanne M Hannah | December 18, 2009 at 01:22 PM
I find this outrageous. I, too, have been following this story and when I saw this on NBC News last night, my jaw hit the floor. I had such hopes for this little boy, that he would once again be reunited with his Father after all this time.
Most forums would agree that it is in a child's best interests to have a meaningful relationship with both parents. It seems as though there are some venues, however, that purposely and unneccesarily drag things out in procedure. Could it be that this Brazilian court is setting this child up for an ultimate denial of reunification based on a continuing custodial environment?
Posted by: Steven Alderman | December 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM