Brazil Judge Rules NJ Dad Can Get Custody of His Son

[José]

Goldman, however, was in never in a mood to negotiate.

"This isn't about a shared custody — I'm his dad, I'm his only parent," Goldman said. "This isn't a custody case — it's an abduction case."

Sorry to break the news to you, Mr. Goldman, but Sean was neither "abducted" nor "kidnapped".

HE WAS TAKEN BY HIS MOTHER, YES, YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT, HIS MOTHER, TO HER NATIVE COUNTRY!!!!

Why didnt Bruna file for divorce in the US?

Because the american justice would deny one of her prerrogatives as a mother:

The right to choose where she wanted to raise her kid.

A child's primary bond is with his mother so most judicial systems in the world award custody to them letting them decide where to live.

An american divorced mother has the right to move from LA to New York and take their kids with her anytime she want.

Bruna, as a brazilian divorced mother living in the US, would be forced by the american justice to stay in the US to be able to raise her child!!!

Bruna was a victim of THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM and its nationalistic disrespect for the right of a foreing born mother to raise their kids in her place of origin.

 

[José]

And I repeat:

The kid was taken by HIS MOTHER to her native country.

The only place in the world where SEAN GOLDMAN was "kidnapped" is inside the sick, twisted mind of a super patriotic american clown like yours, Mr. Goldman!!

 

[José]

But what the family did, AFTER BRUNA'S DEATH, was indeed wrong.

They should have delivered the kid to his biological father ASAP.

 

[California Girl]

Goldman, however, was in never in a mood to negotiate.

"This isn't about a shared custody — I'm his dad, I'm his only parent," Goldman said. "This isn't a custody case — it's an abduction case."

Sorry to break the news to you, Mr. Goldman, but Sean was neither "abducted" nor "kidnapped".

HE WAS TAKEN BY HIS MOTHER, YES, YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT, HIS MOTHER, TO HER NATIVE COUNTRY!!!!

Why didnt Bruna file for divorce in the US?

Because the american justice would deny one of her prerrogatives as a mother:

The right to choose where she wanted to raise her kid.

A child's primary bond is with his mother so most judicial systems in the world award custody to them letting them decide where to live.

An american divorced mother has the right to move from LA to New York and take their kids with her anytime she want.

Bruna, as a brazilian divorced mother living in the US, would be forced by the american justice to stay in the US to be able to raise her child!!!

Bruna was a victim of THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM and its nationalistic disrespect for the right of a foreing born mother to raise their kids in her place of origin.

Children are not property, they are people. The mother behaved outrageously by separating the child from his father. No parent has a greater 'right' to a child. Kids need both parents. I'm heartened to see a parent who will fight for their child.

 

[José]

Originally posted by California Girl
Children are not property, they are people. The mother behaved outrageously by separating the child from his father. No parent has a greater 'right' to a child. Kids need both parents. I'm heartened to see a parent who will fight for their child.

This is a free country, California Girl. You have every right to deny what is in front of your eyes.

But your denial won't change the fact that exists a special biological bond between a mother and her child. A biological bond so strong, so obvious, so blatant that its supremacy regarding custodial rights is recognised and respected by most judicial systems in the world including the US judicial system.

From this special biological bond derives a series of rights the US judicial system usually grant to females, among them, the right of custody.

Any US female citizen has the right to go back to her parents' town and take their kids with her after a divorce.

But Bruna would be forced by the american judicial system to spend the rest of her life in a foreign country where she had no relatives.

Bruna would be denied the same right, the same special prerogative, any american woman has, by virtue of their special biological bond, for the simple fact that she happened to be born on the wrong half of the American Continent!!

Bruna was a victim of the CRAZY NATIONALISM embedded in the american judicial system and was left with no other option than to leave the country the way she did.

BLAME THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT A DESPERATE MOTHER TRAPPED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND TERRIFIED BY THE PROSPECT OF RAISING HER KID ALONE WITHOUT THE HELP OF HER PARENTS.

 

[chanel]

Ms. Bruna made her choice to move to the U.S., marry, and have a CHILD with Mr. Goldman. She was not a "victim"; she was an adult. Responsible parents understand that a child needs both a mother and father. Leaving the country was selfish and irresponsible. Unbelievable.

 

[California Girl]

Originally posted by California Girl
Children are not property, they are people. The mother behaved outrageously by separating the child from his father. No parent has a greater 'right' to a child. Kids need both parents. I'm heartened to see a parent who will fight for their child.

This is a free country, California Girl. You have every right to deny what is in front of your eyes.

But your denial won't change the fact that exists a special biological bond between a mother and her child. A biological bond so strong, so obvious, so blatant that its supremacy regarding custodial rights is recognised and respected by most judicial systems in the world including the US judicial system.

From this special biological bond derives a series of rights the US judicial system usually grant to females, among them, the right of custody.

Any US female citizen has the right to go back to her parents' town and take their kids with her after a divorce.

But Bruna would be forced by the american judicial system to spend the rest of her life in a foreign country where she had no relatives.

Bruna would be denied the same right, the same special prerogative, any american woman has, by virtue of their special biological bond, for the simple fact that she happened to be born on the wrong half of the American Continent!!

Bruna was a victim of the CRAZY NATIONALISM embedded in the american judicial system and was left with no other option than to leave the country the way she did.

BLAME THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT A DESPERATE MOTHER TRAPPED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND TERRIFIED BY THE PROSPECT OF RAISING HER KID ALONE WITHOUT THE HELP OF HER PARENTS.

Fact is there is a special bond between a father and a child too, if it's a decent father. Far too many women think giving birth gives them some 'super power' status over a child. It does not. Fathers play an equally important role in the development of a child. Parents are bonded to their children... without men, there are no children.

 

[rightwinger]

And I repeat:

The kid was taken by HIS MOTHER to her native country.

The only place in the world where SEAN GOLDMAN was "kidnapped" is inside the sick, twisted mind of a super patriotic american clown like yours, Mr. Goldman!!

Its still an abduction. The father has as much a right to custody as the mother. Sneaking off to a country where you know the father would have no rights is just sleazy.
By taking the boy there and denying the father any visitation she is in fact, kidnapping the boy.
The boy was American and his custody was decided in America

 

[José]

Originally posted by California Girl
Fact is there is a special bond between a father and a child too, if it's a decent father. Far too many women think giving birth gives them some 'super power' status over a child. It does not. Fathers play an equally important role in the development of a child. Parents are bonded to their children... without men, there are no children.

Originally posted by rightwinger
Its still an abduction. The father has as much a right to custody as the mother. Sneaking off to a country where you know the father would have no rights is just sleazy.
By taking the boy there and denying the father any visitation she is in fact, kidnapping the boy.
The boy was American and his custody was decided in America

First the "trivial" stuff:

Sean has dual citizenship, he's also a brazilian citizen.

A visitation agreement was never created due to the fact that Goldman was actively trying to take her son away from her. Had he accepted her custody rights there would be no problem.

 

[José]

I'm gonna try to simplify:

After a divorce, a father does not have "as much a right to custody as the mother". In almost all human societies, including the US, custody is awarded to the mother in the vast majority of cases. And this is not the result of a "super power status over a child". This is due to the special biological bond that exists between mother and child that is almost universally recognised by humanity even though Cali Girl insists on denying it.

A divorced american woman has the right to move from Florida to Hawai and use her custody rights to take her kids with her. Bruna, as a divorced brazilian woman, would never be allowed to settle in her native country together with her son. This is a violence, a disrespect commited by America against the right of custody of foreign born women.

No american citizen should be forced to live in France for 20 years so that her french husband could save on air tickets when he visits his children.

Bruna was entitled to the same right to live in her home country with her son as that american citizen. By denying her right to live in Brazil with her son the US cornered Bruna into fleeing the country.

Authoritarian, dictatorial, pornographic laws like this one DESERVE to be broken.

 

[José]

It's ironic that people are referring to Brazil as a lawless country when in fact this South American nation is teaching the world a lesson on moral laws.


Firstly:

The attempts by Mr. Goldman and the US government to take Bruna's son away from her, while she was alive, were repeatedly turned down by the Brazilian judiciary on the grounds that the child was under the custody of his primary caregiver, HIS MOTHER.

Justice was well served, because MOTHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF FATHERS.

Secondly:

After Bruna's passing, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that Sean should be immediately returned to his father.

Justice was well served once again, because FATHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF STEPFATHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS.

In both cases, the whole world witnessed the triumph of justice over moral depravation.

The moral depravation of a father trying to take a son away from his mother as well as the moral depravation of a step father and grandmother trying to prevent a father from gaining his son's custody were decisively defeated.

The brazilian judiciary deserves a standing ovation from the whole civilised world.

 

[José]

And since I mentioned moral depravation I have to say that I've seen many highway whores jumping from one truck to the next, that displayed more compassion, morality and human decency than a law that forces a divorced woman to spend the rest of her life alone in a foreign country, preventing her from raising her children in her own country in the company of her parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents etc, etc...

SHAME ON THE HAGUE CONVENTION INASMUCH AS IT CAN BE USED TO SEPARATE A CHILD FROM HIS/HER MOTHER!!!!

SHAME ON AMERICA AND ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WITH SIMILAR CRUEL LAWS!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's ironic that people are referring to Brazil as a lawless country when in fact this South American nation is teaching the world a lesson on moral laws.


Firstly:

The attempts by Mr. Goldman and the US government to take Bruna's son away from her, while she was alive, were repeatedly turned down by the Brazilian judiciary on the grounds that the child was under the custody of his primary caregiver, HIS MOTHER.

Justice was well served, because MOTHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF FATHERS.

Secondly:

After Bruna's passing, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that Sean should be immediately returned to his father.

Justice was well served once again, because FATHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF STEPFATHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS.

In both cases, the whole world witnessed the triumph of justice over moral depravation.

The moral depravation of a father trying to take a son away from his mother as well as the moral depravation of a step father and grandmother trying to prevent a father from gaining his son's custody were decisively defeated.

The brazilian judiciary deserves a standing ovation from the whole civilised world.

What a joke. The mother STOLE the child and fled the country. And Brazil IGNORED international treaties on the issue. After she died OVER A YEAR AGO Brazil played politics with the child refusing up until the last minute to turn him over to his father. How many last minute changes were made to previous rulings in the father's favor?

Only after Brazil was threatened with economic hardship did they do the legal thing and obey their treaty Obligations.

 

[California Girl]

It's ironic that people are referring to Brazil as a lawless country when in fact this South American nation is teaching the world a lesson on moral laws.


Firstly:

The attempts by Mr. Goldman and the US government to take Bruna's son away from her, while she was alive, were repeatedly turned down by the Brazilian judiciary on the grounds that the child was under the custody of his primary caregiver, HIS MOTHER.

Justice was well served, because MOTHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF FATHERS.

Secondly:

After Bruna's passing, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that Sean should be immediately returned to his father.

Justice was well served once again, because FATHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF STEPFATHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS.

In both cases, the whole world witnessed the triumph of justice over moral depravation.

The moral depravation of a father trying to take a son away from his mother as well as the moral depravation of a step father and grandmother trying to prevent a father from gaining his son's custody were decisively defeated.

The brazilian judiciary deserves a standing ovation from the whole civilised world.

What a joke. The mother STOLE the child and fled the country. And Brazil IGNORED international treaties on the issue. After she died OVER A YEAR AGO Brazil played politics with the child refusing up until the last minute to turn him over to his father. How many last minute changes were made to previous rulings in the father's favor?

Only after Brazil was threatened with economic hardship did they do the legal thing and obey their treaty Obligations.

Absolutely right, RGS. This mother took the child on 'holiday' and never returned. Her actions were selfish and cruel. No mother has the right to stop a child from having a relationship with its father, unless there is a significant reason - such as abuse - for doing so. Children are not the property of mothers. It's about time more women recognized that and stopped acting like they alone are of importance. Far too many women use their children as a weapon against the father.

 

[California Girl]

And since I mentioned moral depravation I have to say that I've seen many highway whores jumping from one truck to the next, that displayed more compassion, morality and human decency than a law that forces a divorced woman to spend the rest of her life alone in a foreign country, preventing her from raising her children in her own country in the company of her parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents etc, etc...

SHAME ON THE HAGUE CONVENTION INASMUCH AS IT CAN BE USED TO SEPARATE A CHILD FROM HIS/HER MOTHER!!!!

SHAME ON AMERICA AND ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WITH SIMILAR CRUEL LAWS!!!!

In this particular case, the mother had died. The child wasn't with her - he was with her family. He was - rightly - returned to his father.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And since I mentioned moral depravation I have to say that I've seen many highway whores jumping from one truck to the next, that displayed more compassion, morality and human decency than a law that forces a divorced woman to spend the rest of her life alone in a foreign country, preventing her from raising her children in her own country in the company of her parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents etc, etc...

SHAME ON THE HAGUE CONVENTION INASMUCH AS IT CAN BE USED TO SEPARATE A CHILD FROM HIS/HER MOTHER!!!!

SHAME ON AMERICA AND ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WITH SIMILAR CRUEL LAWS!!!!

In this particular case, the mother had died. The child wasn't with her - he was with her family. He was - rightly - returned to his father.

BUT only after Brazil was facing the lose of a critical treaty agreement. Prior to that the step father won every appeal and Judges were falling over themselves to over turn any rights the natural father had.

Further the FACTS are that under INTERNATIONAL Treaty ( some call that International law) when the mother refused to return the child to the States for a custody hearing to determine who got the child said treaty was VIOLATED. The mother in effect KIDNAPPED the child and the Brazilian Courts protected her breaking several International Treaties Brazil is a MEMBER of.

 

[California Girl]

And since I mentioned moral depravation I have to say that I've seen many highway whores jumping from one truck to the next, that displayed more compassion, morality and human decency than a law that forces a divorced woman to spend the rest of her life alone in a foreign country, preventing her from raising her children in her own country in the company of her parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents etc, etc...

SHAME ON THE HAGUE CONVENTION INASMUCH AS IT CAN BE USED TO SEPARATE A CHILD FROM HIS/HER MOTHER!!!!

SHAME ON AMERICA AND ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WITH SIMILAR CRUEL LAWS!!!!

In this particular case, the mother had died. The child wasn't with her - he was with her family. He was - rightly - returned to his father.

BUT only after Brazil was facing the lose of a critical treaty agreement. Prior to that the step father won every appeal and Judges were falling over themselves to over turn any rights the natural father had.

Further the FACTS are that under INTERNATIONAL Treaty ( some call that International law) when the mother refused to return the child to the States for a custody hearing to determine who got the child said treaty was VIOLATED. The mother in effect KIDNAPPED the child and the Brazilian Courts protected her breaking several International Treaties Brazil is a MEMBER of.

Quite right.

I am intensely annoyed the attutude that either parent has a greater right to a child than the other. If someone marries in another country and has a child, it is the duty of that parent to put the best interest of the child above their own desires. If that means staying put in a foreign country, then that is what you do. The priority should be to ensure that the child has a strong relationship with both parents.

 

[rightwinger]

It's ironic that people are referring to Brazil as a lawless country when in fact this South American nation is teaching the world a lesson on moral laws.


Firstly:

The attempts by Mr. Goldman and the US government to take Bruna's son away from her, while she was alive, were repeatedly turned down by the Brazilian judiciary on the grounds that the child was under the custody of his primary caregiver, HIS MOTHER.

Justice was well served, because MOTHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF FATHERS.

Secondly:

After Bruna's passing, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that Sean should be immediately returned to his father.

Justice was well served once again, because FATHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF STEPFATHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS.

In both cases, the whole world witnessed the triumph of justice over moral depravation.

The moral depravation of a father trying to take a son away from his mother as well as the moral depravation of a step father and grandmother trying to prevent a father from gaining his son's custody were decisively defeated.

The brazilian judiciary deserves a standing ovation from the whole civilised world.

Jose...

Your reputation precedes you, or should I say negative reputation. Your off the charts neg rep obviously shows you have a skill for offending people. This obvious fishing attempt shows that your skills have not diminished.

Good luck!

 

[KGB]

It's ironic that people are referring to Brazil as a lawless country when in fact this South American nation is teaching the world a lesson on moral laws.


Firstly:

The attempts by Mr. Goldman and the US government to take Bruna's son away from her, while she was alive, were repeatedly turned down by the Brazilian judiciary on the grounds that the child was under the custody of his primary caregiver, HIS MOTHER.

Justice was well served, because MOTHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF FATHERS.

Secondly:

After Bruna's passing, Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that Sean should be immediately returned to his father.

Justice was well served once again, because FATHERS' CUSTODIAL RIGHTS TRUMP THOSE OF STEPFATHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS.

In both cases, the whole world witnessed the triumph of justice over moral depravation.

The moral depravation of a father trying to take a son away from his mother as well as the moral depravation of a step father and grandmother trying to prevent a father from gaining his son's custody were decisively defeated.

The brazilian judiciary deserves a standing ovation from the whole civilised world.

get out of here with that crap.....this 1950s family legal code needs to be wiped away ASAP....that kid was a US citizen being held illegally in another country.

 

[José]

Originally posted by rightwinger
Jose...

Your reputation precedes you, or should I say negative reputation. Your off the charts neg rep obviously shows you have a skill for offending people. This obvious fishing attempt shows that your skills have not diminished.

Good luck!

TRANSLATION:

Jose shattered the idealised image of David Goldman I absorbed from the US media and I hate him for doing this to me.

I feel like one of those melanesian natives of the King Kong island after the evil white man captured their ape deity.

Everybody needs a flawless hero in their lives and now I only have my bottle of moonshine to forget David is not one of them.

To my dying day I will hate Jose for destroying my illusions about David being a perfect hero.