Comments on: Sean Goldman To Speak Out

The 9-Year-Old Boy And His Brazilian Family Members Will Talk Tuesday About Their Ongoing Custody Battle

[fernanda-felicia]

Sean?s maternal grandparents traveled to the United States about one year after Sean?s abduction to testify for the records due to the pending court order. In their testimony, they did not state anything that calls into question Mr. Goldman?s conduct as a husband and a father. Once more, they stated they trusted David Goldman. The transcript of this statement is also in the court records.
But the most reliable witness Mr. Goldman had in the Brazilian and US courts was Bruna, his son?s mother.

Mr. David Goldman has recordings of telephone conversations with Bruna which took place after Sean?s illegal removal, i.e., after litigation had begun. These recordings are also in the court records, and from them I?ll quote a part as an example of the dialogue between the recently separated couple.

?David: This is the point, Bruna. Marriages have their ups and downs? when we started dating, your father and mother, you mother was going to leave him. Marriages have highs and lows, times of crisis, times without crisis, and you said your love turned into friendship?hey, if you?re someone?s friend, there?s still love, Bruna. People are?

Bruna: No, this is not? this is not a man?s love, this is not love like a man. My sexual feelings?didn?t develop and now they?re crushed. That?s enough for me. It?s enough. It?s hard, very hard?

David: That?s right, Bru.

Bruna: I really think you?re a great guy. You?re a wonderful father and... I could never have anyone better. And I?m very happy we had a child together, I?m very happy you were his father??

In another part of this conversation, Bruna complains that her husband didn?t pay enough attention to her. And why is that? Bruna accused David of only having eyes for Sean, completely forgetting the little boy also had a mother. How ironic, considering that now this father is accused of not loving his son?

Please note we?re not making unsupported statements. We?re not narrating our own version, as Mr. Joao Paulo does in his letter. These conversations took place, have been recorded and are part of the court records. Everything is proven. These are not speculations.

On another occasion, Bruna, already in Brazil, sent an email to one of her friends, stating once again:?David is a great guy and I do not regret a single minute, but our love story had ended? I feel really bad for David because of Sean...? The message is also in the court records.

Although Bruna never traveled to the US to testify, she presented a signed declaration to the Superior Court of New Jersey. In this declaration, once more, she makes no accusations about her child?s father. On the contrary.

Ironically, yet again, one of Bruna?s complaints to the New Jersey court was that David and Sean were building a ?best buddies relationship? while she, Bruna, didn?t think it was the ideal relationship between father and son. This is another proven fact. This declaration, written and signed by Bruna, is also in the court records.

Indeed, one must note Bruna really complained about having to work two shifts to help pay the bills. Even though working to help support the household is a reality for 50 million Brazilian women, Bruna was not comfortable with that.

Yet Bruna, in the same declaration, complains about another issue: she complains that one of the reasons that contributed to her wish to separate was the fact that her husband, on the weekends, would go to work on his boat at 4am, only returning at night.

The ironies continue?.

Bruna left David, accusing him of only caring about their child, of only being Sean?s ?best buddy? and forgetting about her as the mother. Now, in the search for his son, David is accused of not loving him.

Bruna left David accusing him of working too much instead of giving her the kind attention she expected. Now, in the quest for his son, David is accused of being a ?...lazy husband...? and a ?...jobless American...?

This is not all. A report from the Rio de Janeiro State Court, written in December 2005, states the following about Sean and his father:

??One perceives that Sean shows interest in being with David, referring to same with very positive attitude...?. This document is also in the court records.

David is even accused of extortion. He?s accused of demanding US$150,000 from Sean?s maternal grandparents, in exchange for the removal of ??unfounded accusations of kidnapping??. He is also accused of larceny and check fraud. He?s accused of forging checks and cleaning out Bruna?s checking account after she came to Brazil.

[Wendy_I]

Leah01...do you have children??? What if one of them were taken from you? Would you EVER stop fighting to get them back?? How can you POSSIBLY ask a father to simply give up his child whom he has been fighting for since his wife abducted him? Sean is NOT old enough to understand what he wants and you stating this clearly shows that you either do NOT have children or you have NO CONCEPT of how to care for them! A 9 year old boy, who has been suffering from parental alienation CANNOT decide where he wants to live and for you, or ANYONE to even suggest it is moronic!! Why don't you give him his own apartment and the keys to your car while you're at it!! This case is simple, Sean is a child, David is his father!! THE END! CBS should be embarrassed and ashamed for exploiting Sean as they have and airing an interview of him. Did they ask his FATHER's permission before airing this?! By New Jersey law David has sole custody of Sean...has CBS sought his permission to air an interview with his child?! I have NEVER in my life witnessed such a blatant flagration of the rights of a child!! SHAME ON YOU!

[fernanda-felicia]

As if this weren?t enough injustice, there is one more circumstance that needs to be noted, related to the processing time of the repatriation demand.

According to what has been previously noted, the court order was filed on November 16, 2004. But on May 24, 2005, the processing of the order was paralyzed by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region, at Bruna?s request, in a motion she filed to contest the competence of the Federal Court.

The paralysis of the process ? I repeat, which occurred due to Bruna?s request ? lasted until September 21, 2005, when the appeal was rejected by the TRF-2, confirming the competence of the Federal Justice. Only then, only after September 21, 2005, was the case resumed. A few days later, on October 13, 2005, a sentence was given that recognized the existence of the illicit act under Article 3, but rejected Sean?s return since too much time had passed.

Let?s recap: The father needed to go to the courts. He had no choice. He asked the Federal Court to return his son to the US on November 16, 2004. The process was halted, with no progress whatsoever for four months due to Bruna?s request. Afterwards, when the case was resumed and the sentence was made, it recognized the father?s right and said he's correct. However, it said too much time had passed and the child?s return was not possible. Tell me, what kind of justice is this? What court allows time to diminish the right of the person who is correct, for a cause that involves priceless interests, like the future of a child?

However, this father did not give up. He made use of each and every appeal foreseen in the Brazilian legislation. He appealed. He requested court orders. He witnessed the TRF-2 declare, expressly, that he, David Goldman, did not present inadequate conditions to raise and educate a child, but that, even with all these reasons, it would not be possible. He asked for the help of Superior Court of Justice. Once more, he did not succeed, not because he wasn?t right, but because too much time had passed. He knocked on the doors of the Federal Supreme Court.

This father, accused of forfeiting and being absent by Mr. Joao Paulo, did everything he could. He fought desperately against the greatest evil of the Brazilian judiciary: its slowness. He made it to the highest court of justice in a country that is not his own, of a country, I repeat, whose language he does not speak and whose institutions he does not understand.

While he awaited his final chance, Bruna tragically passed away.

Mr. David Goldman could never comprehend why the Brazilian judiciary never decided ? as it has still failed to do even now ? to send his child home.

The law was clear. He, David Goldman, was never accused by Bruna or her family of anything. As a matter of fact, since we?re discussing the topic of accusations, it?s time to say ?Enough is enough!?

Because everything Mr. Joao Paulo mentioned in his correspondence to this Council, and everything that Sean?s Brazilian family members have been telling the Rio elite and the media, is new information.

There were never accusations against Sean?s father while the child?s mother was alive. On the contrary.

Now they?re stating that Sean, before turning four years old, while he was still in the US, told his grandmother that his father told him that Bruna didn?t love him [Sean]. Later, when Bruna was in Brazil, learned of this ??barbarity?? committed by the father of her child, and decided to remain here. Now, Sean?s maternal grandparents are speaking to the press, stating that David was violent, that he would punch and break furniture and the walls.

But it?s rather curious that the accusation Sean allegedly mentioned to his grandmother, that his father was poisoning Bruna?s image in the eyes of the little boy, only came to light before Joao Paulo?s letter was written, almost five years after the marriage between David and Bruna ended. There were certainly plenty of opportunities before then

The court records of this case contain more than two thousand pages, without a single accusation ? see, it?s not about the absence of proof, it?s about the absence of accusations ? that would have indicated that David is an unfit parent.

Sean?s maternal grandparents presented sworn statements to the Superior Court of New Jersey, giving their version of the events. They declared they had no knowledge of marital problems in their daughter?s marriage, and stated they fully trusted Mr. David Goldman. These statements are part of the court records in Brazil and the USA.

[fernanda-felicia]

Thirty-six days later, on August 23, 2004, Mr. David Goldman requested a court order from the New Jersey courts, pleading for the custody of his son and his immediate return to the United States. On August 26, 2004, the Superior Court of New Jersey delivered the first of three decisions of the U.S. judiciary ? all solemnly ignored by Sean?s mother ? which determined that Bruna and the maternal grandparents should return the minor to the United States immediately.

A little more than a week later, on September 3, 2004, Mr. David Goldman ? then trusting that Brazil would fully comply with its international responsibility ? reported his son?s removal to Rio de Janeiro to the U.S. State Department, triggering the mechanism of international judicial cooperation foreseen by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Brazil agreed to the convention, promulgated under decree number 3.413/2000.

More time went by and in October 2004, there was still no word on the conclusion of the international judicial proceedings foreseen in the Hague Convention. Mr. Goldman realized he could wait no longer.

He hired attorneys in Brazil and using one of the options given in the convention, started judicial proceedings in the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro, asking for his son?s repatriation to the United States. The referred proceeding began on November 16, 2004, less than four months after the retention of his son in Brazil had taken place against his will. On December 22, 2004, Mr. David Goldman was cited for the terms of the custody request, proposed by Bruna before the State Court of Rio de Janeiro. He was present, as stated in the records, and contested the request, also pleading for the child?s return to the United States.

For four months after he received the news that his son would not voluntarily return to the United States, Mr. David Goldman triggered the appropriate mechanism of international judiciary cooperation and, if that wasn?t enough, went forward and got involved in three court orders, two of which were in a country 5,000 miles far from his, whose language he does not speak and where he had been before only for a few days, on vacation.

The only thing Mr. David Goldman did not do was take justice into his own hands.

He didn?t even think about coming to Brazil and removing his child from Rio de Janeiro without the mother?s consent ? acting in a similar manner to his ex-wife. No.

Mr. Goldman preferred to trust the Brazilian institutions. He preferred to trust the rule of law, which seems so clear. After all, Brazil, a few years before, had signed an international convention which, as even a layman would understand, expressly determines the return of a child to the country of habitual residence, in the cases in which the other parent did not consent to his/her removal.

Brazil made the six weeks provided by the convention ? that?s right, the convention requires the repatriation of the child in six weeks ? transform into months, and the months turned into years. Into four long years.
One should note a few things about this case:
First, the Brazilian federal court recognized, in all instances, that Bruna had committed the illicit act mentioned in the third Article of the Hague Convention; that she had maintained Sean in Brazil against the applicable law of New Jersey, where the minor had always lived.

The reason for this father?s defeat was much crueler.

The reason is the following: although it was recognized that Sean was removed to Brazil against applicable legislation, and that, hence in principle his repatriation would be fully appropriate, the Federal Court understood that, at that point, at the time of trial, in October of 2005, too much time had passed, and the consolidation of the actual situation of the child recommended his maintenance in Rio de Janeiro in the company of the mother, although the illicit act foreseen on article 3 had been recognized.

The question that comes to mind is obvious: ?What could this father have done differently? What could this father have done to prevent time from passing? To avoid the sentence that recognized that his right was nothing but a consolation prize, with no practical effect? There is only one answer: Nothing, this father could not have done anything differently.

This father could have not come to Brazil and removed his child from Rio de Janeiro without a supporting Brazilian court order. This father needed to appeal to the judiciary. His plea was denied not because he didn?t have the right he was alleged to possess, but because time had passed.

[fernanda-felicia]

Re: Sean Goldman

Dear Sirs,

I report to this council representing Mr. George David Goldman, an American citizen who, since mid-2004, has been battling hard and fighting judicial battles before the Brazilian courts in an attempt to repatriate his minor son, Sean Richard Goldman, to the United States.

We learned, a few weeks ago, that Mr. Joao Paulo Bagueira Leal Lins e Silva had addressed correspondence to this Council and the Brazilian media, in reference to the case of the minor Sean Goldman . In this correspondence, Mr. Joao Paulo refers to Mr. David Goldman as ??lazy husband??, exposing publicly, in a demeaning way, alleged intimate details of the first marriage of his wife Bruna.

It?s not the intention of this response to dispute the allegations made by Mr. Joao Paulo that Bruna did not maintain sexual relations with Mr. David Goldman, nor that he did not desire his wife during the marriage. No. Mr. Goldman will not stoop to that level. Although he had litigated against Bruna in the Brazilian and American courts for more than four years, David Goldman has never made negative accusations against the mother of his son. Except for the criticism ? always consistently repeated ? of her attitude of illegally retaining Sean outside the United States against the will of his father and against American law, David Goldman, during more than fours years of litigation with more than two thousand pages of court proceedings, has never exposed his intimacies with Bruna to anyone, only in the exact measure needed to prove his right to repatriate the minor. David Goldman will not overstep these boundaries now.

Moreover, it is extremely clear that the couple?s sexual routine is irrelevant to the solution of the said controversy at hand: the repatriation of minor Sean Goldman to the United States of America.

Mr. David Goldman will also not waste the Council?s time trying to convince anyone regarding who was the breadwinner of the family when David was still married to Bruna.

This is ultimately because even if Mr. Goldman really were a ??lazy husband?? according to what Mr. Lins e Silva says, even if Bruna was the sole breadwinner of the family when she was married to David, that would not give Sean?s mother the right to retain her child outside the United States, against the father?s will and against New Jersey law where the child had lived since his birth.

Notwithstanding that, some of the financial aspects raised by Mr. Lins e Silva will be addressed later in this letter, not only because Mr. Goldman has been accused of extortion and check fraud, but also because clarifying a few untruths will help this Council give Sean?s stepfather due credibility.

Now that the non-crucial matters in the letter have been made clear, let?s move to the matter that is crucial: the incredible and moving judicial battle in which Mr. Goldman is engaged in two different continents, to retrieve his son.

On this topic, the letter signed by Mr. Lins e Silva leads one to believe that Mr. Goldman, after his son?s removal from the United States, had forgotten about the child. That he would have resigned himself to losing his son. That he would have disappeared, and ??after smelling money?? reappeared more than four years later, when he learned about the passing of his ex-wife. Mr. Lins e Silva says at one point, questioning the true interest of Mr. Goldman in his son: ?Note that if he were really suffering or interested he wouldn?t have begun his outcry four and a half years later. He would have done that the week after Bruna came to Brazil!!!?

This writer admits he is perplexed.

Bruna came to Brazil on June 16, 2004, with authorization from Mr. Goldman to remain in Rio de Janeiro only for what should have been be a short vacation period. On June 19, 2004, Bruna told Mr. Goldman over the phone that she would not return to the United States and that she would keep Sean with her, regardless of the father?s wishes.

The travel authorization given by the child?s father allowed Sean to remain outside of the United States only until July 18, 2004. From that day on [July 18th], Sean?s presence in Brazil was considered a retention of the minor outside his habitual residence, going against what the father had consented and thus violating New Jersey legislation.

David Goldman, then, immediately began his ??outcry??.

[fernanda-felicia]

Dear Paula,

Sean knows everything huh? Does he knows his mother took him away from his father without his consent???

Does he know that his father tried to call him many many times throughout the years and his wonderful Raimundo hung up the phone on him???

Does he know that David has been to Brazil with his parents, cousins and uncles to see Sean and was not allowed to?

Does Sean know that the only condition David would be allowed to see the child was if he signed full custody to Bruna and depended on her good will to allow him see the child in the future?

Does Sean know that David even tried to see him in a different country so that he could see him? Does Sean know that David was not allowed to have any contact with him for the past 4.5 years?

Does Sean know that Silvana, João Paulo, Paulo Lins, Helvécio and Luca have said so many lies about David?

You cannot be that naive, right???? Of course the treat him nice. I mean it would be WEIRD if he said he wanted to leave them after 5 years of kidnapping right??? Get a grip my dear.

See the facts!

[carolinecla]

Exactly. If Sean knew what really happened and his Brazilian family hadn't been feeding him lies maybe he wouldn't be so set on staying in Brazil.
They really shouldn't air this interview, what are they trying to get from this? Sympathy for the other family? Sick.

[Andrew_PA]

So basically you're saying that it is okay for a child to be illegally retained by anyone, as long as they have the money to care for the child, the child can make friends in the environment, and the ones who are illegally retaining the child don't beat him every day. Showing this video of Sean is the same as a hostage reading a statement that his captors insist he read into a camera ("or else"), only Sean has all these answers already in his head because all he's been told for 5 years is that his father doesn't love him and abandoned him. I really hope you're not a parent, and if you are, really think about this: your child is ripped from you without your consent... then five years later, after searching for them far and wide, you find them happy and adjusted with his or her captors. You really wouldn't asserted your unalienable right to be reunited with your child? Please, give me a break.

[Andrew_PA]

Let them prove all these "missed visits" in court. So far, the only side of this case that is getting a tongue lashing in Judge Pinto's rulings for lying, misleading, and deliberately disobeying court orders is João Paulo Lins e Silva and the maternal family. Also, the court appointed psychologists ALL agreed that Sean had been told 5 years of lies about his father and his father's efforts to be in Sean's life - so of course Sean believes those that he is surrounded by. And yet, those psychologists and the court says it is imperative that Sean be with his father IMMEDIATELY. And why??? To reverse the years and years of CHILD ABUSE that has been done to Sean at the hands of his Brazilian family by LYING to him about his father. You're believing the same crap that they are feeding a 9-year old. Congrats. Take the time and read the 82 page ruling from June 1st and the 12 page ruling from this past week. The people you "know" are playing a dangerous game with a boy's unalienable right to know and be raised by his FATHER who has done everything within his power to bring his son home as prudently and safely as possible.

[NaynayBr]

Oh shut up! Sean's will HAS NEVER BEEN RESPECTED! At the moment Bruna kidnapped him to Rio de Janeiro to live away from his dad, who he adored,SHE JUST POOPED in her son's future by just thinking about herself never thinking/considering Sean's will or David's love for his son.
I am sure she might be the guest of honor in Hell.

[NaynayBr]

Dear Paula,Adolf Hitler used to have a German Sheppard dog that simply loved his owner.No matter how many people he would send to concentration camp to die just because they were not Aryans, the dog LOVED and WORSHIPED his master.The same applies to Sean.
Kids and dogs usually behave the same.They love to be taken out for a walk, love to play ball, love to be patted and respected and LOVE the one who feed them.Got it?
Sean might love this family and the family might love him back, but that doesn't mean that the family is acting according to the law and respecting David's and Sean's rights to be with each other.
This Joao Paulo has his daughter now, so maybe he should give Chiara to David and keep Sean, don't you think is its a fair trade?
Lets see how they would feel if David got that little baby and kept her away from the family and brainwashed her against them.I am sure Chiara would LOVE and worship David the same way Sean does to this family, as ou state here.This family is keeping Sean as a hostage and David and Sean belobg TOGETHER.BRING SEAN HOME NOW!

Do you stutter... or just double-post repeating yourself?

Sean's will was never considered five years ago when he was illegally abducted to Brazil.

Sean may be "happy", but it's the only thing he knows at the moment. And the decision of Judge Pinto - the report of the court-appointed psychologists - make it clear EXACTLY why that is.

David's supporters don't want the interview shown for the reason that Judge Pinto elaborated in his decision on custody: Sean has been manipulated enough by the LeS/BR families and further exposure is nothing more than more torture for the child.

Was Sean "happy" five years ago when Bruna became a criminal and kidnapped him to Brazil? I'd bet not. Any and all "adjusting" he has made to life in Brazil is the result of an illegal act - and, yes, completely consistent with brainwashing.

[learnthetruth]

CBS, I am disgusted at you. I held you as a legitimate, reputable news source. As you can tell from the numerous previous posts, your "facts" have obviously not been researched.

Responsible journalism does include presenting both sides of the story, the same as a Court would require. Thus, I agree with reporting not only the Goldman side of the story, but that of the Brazilian family as well. That being said, you are not only neglecting the Goldman side of the story, but the FACTS as well. FACTS that can be PROVEN by DOCUMENTED COURT RECORDS. You should take the time to read Judge Pinto's ruling, as well as that of the Brazilian Supreme Court. IF you had taken the time to research BOTH sides of the story, you would have discovered the FACTS.

Now, as to Sean. What you are doing by EXPLOITING this CHILD is considered ABUSE as well as being in violation of the COURT RULING. Again, take the time to research and you would have found this.

If you continue to neglect the TRUTH as well as maintaining your biased reporting, I will have NO CHOICE but to boycott CBS as well as any and all affiliates. The web is a powerful tool and I have no problem spreading this disgusting ABUSE and EXPLOITATION of this CHILD.

I am utterly disappointed in you CBS. I hope you take the time to reconsider this airing before tomorrow. Sean's "interview" should NEVER be shown. How could you do this to a 9 year-old child? Would you want your own child exploited in such a way to the national media? I hope you go home to your child and when you look in their eyes, you think about this. What if this were your son or daughter? Would you be OK with a national news source exploiting them for ratings? I would hope not.

[kvaughn4275]

Amen!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. CBS should be ashamed, even though they did end up pulling Sean from the segment. But I still am appalled that CBS would allow the kidnappers (that's what I'm calling his stepdad and grandmother from now on because they are indeed criminals) any airtime at all to spew their lies and manipulations!! Why follow the rules of journalism when these people obviously have no regard for law and the sanctity of the the love between a parent and their child? They have spit in all of our faces, and the faces of the parents whose children are still stuck in Brazil (60?) of which are American!! These people do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. What's the point of the Hague Convention or any internaional law, for that matter, if breaking that law goes unpunished??? Everyone must contact their congressmen to pressure them to get the sanctions passed. That's the only way we're going to see any traction. Because there are many, many in Brazil who are on David's side and are appalled and embarrassed that this has happened. So if the kidnappers are pressured by their own maybe we'll finally get somewhere. I really don't know how David sleeps at night. What a nightmare.

[Paula_RJ]

Sean was not brainwashed.This is the reason that David's supporters don't want the interview with the child is shown. They don't want people see the truth. Sean is happy in Rio. This is the truth forbidden to be shown. Contratulations CBS. Go ahead. Many people will support you after seeing the real facts of the other side. Until now, people have seen only Mr. Goldman's side. And Sean's will has been forgotten and not respected.

Do you stutter... or just double-post repeating yourself?

Sean's will was never considered five years ago when he was illegally abducted to Brazil.

[NaynayBr]

Oh shut up! Sean's will HAS NEVER BEEN RESPECTED! At the moment Bruna kidnapped him to Rio de Janeiro to live away from his dad, who he adored,SHE JUST POOPED in her son's future by just thinking about herself never thinking/considering Sean's will or David's love for his son.
I am sure she might be the guest of honor in Hell.

[Andrew_PA]

So basically you're saying that it is okay for a child to be illegally retained by anyone, as long as they have the money to care for the child, the child can make friends in the environment, and the ones who are illegally retaining the child don't beat him every day. Showing this video of Sean is the same as a hostage reading a statement that his captors insist he read into a camera ("or else"), only Sean has all these answers already in his head because all he's been told for 5 years is that his father doesn't love him and abandoned him. I really hope you're not a parent, and if you are, really think about this: your child is ripped from you without your consent... then five years later, after searching for them far and wide, you find them happy and adjusted with his or her captors. You really wouldn't asserted your unalienable right to be reunited with your child? Please, give me a break.

[SeanSupporter]

There is no need to douple post your comments. That is, unless, if you are desparate! :)

[CallingForJustice]

How utterly disgusting that an otherwise reputable news station would exploit a child like this. This poor little boy has been kidnapped and held hostage, while his loving father in the US fights for him, and all this station cares about is having something to talk about. As if this kid would say in front of cameras and a family he has no choice but to depend on, that he truly wants to be with his father.

We were wrong to keep Elian from his father back in 2000. Brazil is wrong to keep Sean from his father today. We need to get this poor kid back where he belongs, not focusing on how we can further traumatize him.

Absolutely shameful.

[Paula_RJ]

Sean was not brainstormed. This is the reason that David's supporters don't want the interview with the child is shown. They don't want people see the truth. Sean is happy in Rio. This is the truth forbidden to be shown. Contratulations CBS. Go ahead. Many people will support you after seeing the real facts of the other side. Untin now, people have seen only Mr. Goldman's side. And Sean's will has been forgotten and not respected.

Sean may be "happy", but it's the only thing he knows at the moment. And the decision of Judge Pinto - the report of the court-appointed psychologists - make it clear EXACTLY why that is.

David's supporters don't want the interview shown for the reason that Judge Pinto elaborated in his decision on custody: Sean has been manipulated enough by the LeS/BR families and further exposure is nothing more than more torture for the child.

Was Sean "happy" five years ago when Bruna became a criminal and kidnapped him to Brazil? I'd bet not. Any and all "adjusting" he has made to life in Brazil is the result of an illegal act - and, yes, completely consistent with brainwashing.

I might add that JPLS, Nanna and Tostes have certainly seized on every opportunity to make their "side" known. That each and every utterance from their mouths have been proven to be lies and the works of kidnappers by the courts is really just too bad for them, ain't it?

How I hope that the interview tomorrow morning is something more than a free soundbite segment for them. They have had unfettered access, sympathy and support from the Brazilian press (if not the Brazilian people), so I'm sorry your pleading fall on deaf ears here. If CBS does their job and asks them questions based on the facts, this will completely blow up in their faces... like everything else has.

[SeanSupporter]

So you say the truth is forbidden to be shown. In other words, you are lying, since you cannot tell the truth? Interesting! How come you stated in your previous post then that Sean has been told all the facts about this case? I suggest you pick up any basic child psychology book and it will tell you that involving a child into a dispute like this and telling him or her all details is considered CHILD ABUSE.

[soonerisbetter]

Paula, please consider that no one is complaining about the CBS interview with Sean's stepfather and grandmother. They are only offended that Sean is being exposed in a flagrant violation of a BRAZILIAN COURT ORDER that Sean be kept away from the media. Also, the "facts" provided by Mr. Lins e Silva have been disproved in the BRAZILIAN COURTS!

[hopeful4change]

Wow, I truly thought that CBS actually was one of the few news organizations with ETHICS! I truly cannot believe that CBS is actually going to allow video of a child whom the COURT APPOINTED psychologist IN Brazil has said is suffering from SEVERE parental alienation to be aired. If you want to go ahead and let the brazilian family share "their side" of the story however twisted it may be then fine, but David Goldman, Sean's father and the ONLY person who has legal custody of him did not give you permission. It is shameful what CBS is doing that will be harmful both to the child and impacting the opinion of many who are not informed about the FACTS in this case! How can you exploit a child who is suffering from Parental Alienation! Are you not an organization with Morals!! Also you continue to state WRONG facts! Sean has not been ADOPTED by his stepfather. And David has been fighting for sean and trying to see Sean from the minute his wife told him she wasn't coming back to the United States. If you are going to interview the Brazilian family, the least you can do is also interview David and his family and lawyers and HAGUE CONVENTION experts and Court appointed psychologists! But perhaps you are bothered by the fact that David has given almost all his interviews to NBC networks? This child was KIDNAPPED and his father has been fighting tooth and nail to get him back for 5 years! I urge you to NOT air anything having to Do with David Goldman's son. You have no right and it goes against the ethics of journalism. Let me be clear: If you air footage of a CHILD that has clearly been pressured and has been proven to be suffering from Parental Alienation, you have lost all credibility. Shame on you CBS. I am shocked and appalled.

[carolinecla]

EXACTLY

[lily2467]

So I guess by your reasoning, if someone kidnaps a child and treats him fairly well and after years with his kidnapper the child is settled that means the kidnapper should retain custody of the child, regardless of having committed a crime in the first place. Brazil will become a HAVEN for kidnappers if Sean is not returned to his one and only DAD, David!

[Paula_RJ]

I am Brazilian and I know Sean as well as João Paulo. I give all my support to them because I've been witness of the love that there is between each other. Sean loves João Paulo. Why a lawyer with his the reputation that João Paulo has in Brazil, would accept to be so exposed in the media if there was not so much love for this child? Mr. Goldman is fighting for his son. I recognize. But unfortunatelly many, many lies are been told by him in order to convince the people that the family is not taking care of this child in a proper way. It is a lie. Sean is very happy, confidente, knows all the truth about his life. And he made a choise. To remain in Brazil with his stepfather and his granparents. All the persons around him in Rio de Janeiro, are very respected by the people that know them. Mr. Goldman has used ways to convince the people, but not to convince Sean. I am witness of the times that Mr. Goldman didn't appear to visit Sean. And the times he did it, he was more worried about taking pictures of the son to show to the media. Sean is a very polite child and never treated Mr. Goldman in an unproperty way. Although he didn't agree with these pictures. But Mr. Goldman thinks only about him. He seems not to be worried about Sean wishes. This Mr. Goldman is not the real person he pretends to be. I hope this interview can show the truth that people who knows Sean already know.

[NaynayBr]

Dear Paula,Adolf Hitler used to have a German Sheppard dog that simply loved his owner.No matter how many people he would send to concentration camp to die just because they were not Aryans, the dog LOVED and WORSHIPED his master.The same applies to Sean.
Kids and dogs usually behave the same.They love to be taken out for a walk, love to play ball, love to be patted and respected and LOVE the one who feed them.Got it?
Sean might love this family and the family might love him back, but that doesn't mean that the family is acting according to the law and respecting David's and Sean's rights to be with each other.
This Joao Paulo has his daughter now, so maybe he should give Chiara to David and keep Sean, don't you think is its a fair trade?
Lets see how they would feel if David got that little baby and kept her away from the family and brainwashed her against them.I am sure Chiara would LOVE and worship David the same way Sean does to this family, as ou state here.This family is keeping Sean as a hostage and David and Sean belobg TOGETHER.BRING SEAN HOME NOW!

[Andrew_PA]

Let them prove all these "missed visits" in court. So far, the only side of this case that is getting a tongue lashing in Judge Pinto's rulings for lying, misleading, and deliberately disobeying court orders is João Paulo Lins e Silva and the maternal family. Also, the court appointed psychologists ALL agreed that Sean had been told 5 years of lies about his father and his father's efforts to be in Sean's life - so of course Sean believes those that he is surrounded by. And yet, those psychologists and the court says it is imperative that Sean be with his father IMMEDIATELY. And why??? To reverse the years and years of CHILD ABUSE that has been done to Sean at the hands of his Brazilian family by LYING to him about his father. You're believing the same crap that they are feeding a 9-year old. Congrats. Take the time and read the 82 page ruling from June 1st and the 12 page ruling from this past week. The people you "know" are playing a dangerous game with a boy's unalienable right to know and be raised by his FATHER who has done everything within his power to bring his son home as prudently and safely as possible.

[SeanSupporter]

Paula_RJ Contrary to all other comments you fail to supply us with facts. How much were you paid for your unsubstantiated comment? Or are you maybe one of the Brazilian family members? Because, last time I checked with Brazil Magazine their poll indicates that your claim that "all the persons around him in RJ" support JP is incorrect.
Why would a lawyer with his reputation accept this exposure? Because JP did not expect the repercussions his actions would have. I will not go into detail, because I am sure you as well as all other commentators here know these details. But let me tell you this: The truth is self-evident.

[soonerisbetter]

Paula,
You seem sincere and well meaning, but have you stopped to think about why Mr. Lins e Silva, a lawyer, has not been able to convince the Brazilian courts that David does not care about his son? Further, do you think that Mr. Lins e Silver would worry about Sean's wishes if Sean told him he did not want to go to school? Of course not.

[RobertaPalermo]

The father disrespects Sean, the mother respected him very much!

Everyone knows that ?Sean? doesn?t want to leave Brazil and we also know that the maternal family never asked him to leave, of course. And what exactly is the value of an interview made by a psychologist hand-picked by the maternal family, who also makes clear that she wants Sean to stay in Brazil? Isn?t it proof that there is a corporatism committed to disrespect the law?


This interview only made it harder to make the transition to a different home, different city, and different country. If they?re not the ones who will decide whether Sean stays or goes, to interview him so he can say what he wants will frustrate him even more. After all, he cannot make this decision. It?s clear in this conversation the manipulation and parental alienation throughout the years.


They scheduled really cool outings on the days he was supposed to meet his father? Oh, what a pity! Sean won?t be able to go to Beach Park, since he has to stay home to see his father, oops, to see David. Or is that because he can?t leave the state of Rio de Janeiro?

He won?t be able to go to Búzios, because he has to wait for the insisting guy who?s going over there to see him.

The father did not show up to meet him. Did they tell the boy the meeting had been canceled? And was there really an appointment every time they told the boy about one? Should a family that has frequently made use of illegal tactics be trusted?

Here are the portions where the psychologist showed her bias for him to stay in Brazil. Was this interview conducted in an adequate manner?


TC ? Which friend do you like the most at school?
SG ? Oh, there are so many?
TC ? So many! Wow! There are many friends you like...

Reading between the lines: Don?t take Sean from here, don?t take him from all the millions of friends he has. Only his mother can do that!

www.robertapalermo.com.br