No, it’s not. The public record shows that David Goldman went to the Brazilian courts immediately after he learned of his wife’s intentions, in September 2004. In fact, in October 2005, about 14 months after Sean’s abduction, those courts sided with him (cite). Alas, the mother’s family was only just beginning to stall and play legal games.
Again, I’ll ask: Can you possibly be serious? The boy’s mother died in August 2008, sixteen months ago. David Goldman had been trying to get his son back since June 2004, for more than five years! How can you say that it’s only been since his wife died that he’s been interested being reunited with his son?
No, [party A] sees, [party B] doesn’t actually think that’s true.
In short, each case is individual with a person or body of persons charged with hearing the facts and coming to a conclusion. People propagandizing the press for various reasons have no interest in having a full hearing. Neither does a single party by itself. In child custody cases, courts are typically charged with determining what is in the best interests of the child.
This is not correct either. The money was to remove the grandparents from the civil suit that Goldman filed here. I believe it wasn’t actually money but a condo in Florida (their assets in the U.S. were frozen) which he subsequently sold to help pay for legal fees.
That is NOT the same as surrendering his rights to his son, but the fact that they’re mis-stating the nature of this transaction IS indicative of how dishonest and manipulative the Brazilian family is. The grandmother, at least, is going to be able to visit Sean which is a lot more than she deserves.
Y’know the Alian Gonzalez case is a good example of what is really at work here.
In both cases, the child lost a parent, and the surviving parent filed to get custody, (for whatever reason). If you’re the one surviving parent and petition the court for custody, (unless you are demonstratively a drug addict or child abuser or crack whore), it should be a pretty straight forward win for you.
But, in both these cases, it took months and months because politics comes into it and every one lines up along party lines. American’s didn’t want that boy returned to his father saying his mother wanted ‘freedom’ for her son. They dragged their heals and tried every imaginable thing, but in the end he father gets to say. Period.
This time, same thing, the surviving parent should get to say where his son lives and with whom. Brazilians are doing the same thing American’s tried. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. It will slow everything down but nothing more.
I mean, think about it. If that was your son, kidnapped to a foreign country on the pretext of a vacation. Now your ex dies and your child is left in another country being raised by non relatives. What would you want the courts to do?
That’s not how I remember it. I remember Elian’s family in America and maybe the Cuban community in Miami advocating that he remain here, but I recall most Americans agreeing that the boy belonged with his father, even if it meant he had to go to Cuba.