American David Goldman and his son, Sean: When his wife

took Sean to Brazil, she decided to marry another man and

remain in Brazil. She subsequently died and left the boy

with his stepdad, resulting in an epic international dispute.

 

 

O Globo, Brazil

In Custody Battle Over 9-Year-Old, Brazilian Stepdad Calls American Dad 'Liar'

 

"The details he's offered don't conform to reality. We have all the documents that prove this. His version only shows photos with Sean. I didn't watch all of the programs, but I know that one of the things he alleges is that he came to Brazil and was prevented (from seeing his son). That is a lie. There has never been any attempt to impede him from doing anything. He never attempted to contact the family like that. There was never any legal initiative on this. Zero."

 

-- João Paulo Lins e Silva, stepfather of Sean Lins e Silva aka/Sean Goldman

 

Translated By Brandi Miller

 

March 14, 2009

 

Brazil - O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)

David Goldman with his son Sean and his late wife, Bruna. In 2004, Bruna took their son to Brazil and never returned. After marrying another man in Brazil, she died, resulting in the present custody battle.   REUTERS, U.K.: Nine-year-old Sean Goldman reunited with American father, Dec. 24, 00:01:13

Brazilian stepfather says American Dad avoided visiting his son to continue his accusation of kidnapping.

 

SOME BACKGROUND:

-- In 2004, four-year-old Sean Goldman, a Brazilian-American boy from New Jersey, was taken on vacation by his mother to her native Rio de Janeiro, and never came back.

-- A U.S. court ruled the case an abduction and ordered his immediate return to his American father, which the mother ignored. A Brazilian court granted the mother custody, which the father, David Goldman, found outrageous. She remarried and then, last year, died giving birth to her second child.

-- Sean, who turned nine in May, now lives with his stepfather, João Paulo Lins e Silva, his baby half-sister, and his maternal grandparents. The Brazilian family is doing everything in its power to keep him there. Sean's American father, who recently saw his son for the first time in four years, is doing everything in his power to win him back. [summation courtesy of Brazzil.com]

 

RIO: American David Goldman had just left the condominium, where earlier he had met with his son Sean for the second time that day, when lawyer João Paulo Lins e Silva, the boy's stepfather, welcomed the O Globo team for his first interview on the case. Despite the annoyance caused by the visit (in fact, father and son saw one another outside the apartment - in the common area of the building), João Paulo, who is struggling to keep Sean in Brazil, appeared calm and somewhat satisfied to know that right now, there is a manifesto issued by friends circulating on the Internet in support of his cause.

 

João Paulo Lins e Silva, his wife Bruna and

Sean some time in 2006.

 

He explains that after a long period of silence he has decided to discuss the case to "stop taking the heat" and to challenge the idea that "silence implies consent." The state courts awarded him temporary custody of the child and João Paulo says he's the target of an international smear campaign in which he appears like a "kidnapper" of a 9-year-old boy who considers himself his son. During the interview, João Paulo tried to avoid any emotional tone. According to him, he doesn't want to use the same weapons as the American. In the end, however, he gave up. Confronted with a photograph of Sean, in which the boy is holding the wedding rings of João Paulo and Bruna [the boy's now-deceased mother] in a wood frame the shape of an eight, the lawyer explains that the "eight," when laid down, stands for infinity. "That was our symbol … infinite love." The he cries.

 

O GLOBO: How do you interpret the public's reaction?

 

JOÃO PAULO: My feeling was that the American father began taking advantage of the circumstances, presenting his version - which is largely a lie - to the American public. This began, perhaps, as a strategy created by him and his team, and it ended up contaminating Brazilian public opinion as well. The objective was to transform us into the great villains of the story. Of course public opinion has weight. It's absurd how two families (the Bianchis and the Lins e Silvas) who for years have shown only love, affection and dedication to the child, have now been turned into international kidnappers, as they are attempting to sell it. That is absurd.

 

O GLOBO: You referred to the version which is a lie. Could you offer more detail on what you consider to be the lies of the American's version?  

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

 

JOÃO PAULO: The details he's offered don't conform to reality. We have all the documents that prove this. His version only shows photos with Sean. I didn't watch all of the programs, but I know that one of the things he alleges is that he came to Brazil and was prevented (from seeing his son). That is a lie. There has never been any attempt to impede him from doing anything. He never attempted to contact the family like that. There was never any legal initiative on this. Zero. No phone calls or petitions to the judge requesting a visit. He has displayed his passport saying that he came seven times. But people say he was only lobbying at the courthouse.

 

O GLOBO: He refers to the Brazilian family as being influential and capable of influencing the legal system.

 

JOÃO PAULO: Another absurdity. Nothing like that has happened. And look at the text of the petition from the American, an official document in the lawsuit (he pulls it out and reads): "If until now, there has been no visitation, it is because, although it was never denied by the child's mother, in order for a father-son reunion, their respective attorneys have always imposed the condition of David's signature on the visitation agreement - which would imply his acceptance of Brazilian jurisdiction over the issues related to the child's custody. The father could never subscribe to this agreement because it would result in an impediment to continuing the search and seizure lawsuit [involving kidnapping], the proceedings of which have been referred to the Federal Supreme Court."

 

SEE ALSO ON THIS:

Estadao, Brazil: Protest Held in Tug of War Over Brazilian-American Boy

 

What does that mean? It's clear. He opted not to visit his son because there is a lawsuit. And if he visited him, that would be admitting to it. This trial in the Supreme Court alleging kidnapping is his initiative. Now, it is stated verbatim that this was his choice - that he couldn't visit because if he had - then this would no longer be a kidnapping. That's absurd. If the lawsuit took 20 years, he would be waiting 20 years because a lawyer said that to him. What kind of love is that?

 

CLICK HERE FOR PORTUGUESE VERSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US March 29, 9:28pm]