On April 5th, the Associated Press reported that Sean Goldman's Brazilian grandmother has filed a court action seeking to have visitation with Sean. Apparently she and her husband have been
in New Jersey since last month and arrived with hopes of visiting 9-year-old Sean Goldman. Sean and his father arrived home in the United States on December 24, 2009.
Apparently Silvana Bianchi has a short memory. Is it possible that she has forgotten that David Goldman had to wait four years to see Sean after Goldman's former wife (Bianchi's daughter, now deceased) abducted the child to Brazil?
Goldman's lawyer, Patricia Apy, told the AP that an offer was made to provide contact with the child with a mental health professional supervising. Apy described Goldman as desiring a process of transition. This sounds logical and sound considering the difficulty in adjustments that a child in Sean's position must be having to make. According to Apy, Bianchi wasn't willing to have visitation with restrictions. Therefore, she and her husband filed an emergency motion, which the court in New Jersey denied. There will be a hearing in May.
David Goldman told MSNBC that he will allow grandparent visitation at some point in time, but not at this time:
It's interesting that the Bianchi's American lawyer claims that Sean's human rights are being violated, and that it's not right for David to cut off Sean's mother's side of the family. Funny, they didn't seem to feel that way when David and Sean were kept from each other for over five years. I guess those arguments only work when THEY are the ones being hurt, and made to do without. David is absolutely right to keep them from his son for now, they have no boundaries and would probably only burden this little boy with tears and declarations of what he is missing, and how much everyone is missing him in Brazil. That is not what this child needs right now. His father is acting in Sean's best interests, and the maternal grandparents are acting in their own.
Posted by: Emma | May 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM
No kidding, Joe.
Posted by: Jeanne M Hannah | April 06, 2010 at 09:53 AM
Guess they have never heard of the Troxel case and the long list of supporting caselaw against them in this country
Posted by: Joe Jurecki | April 06, 2010 at 09:16 AM