http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=XxWbulcnExs

Brazilian TV

Originally posted by spongebob good job Fergie! I can understand both sides of this case, and the languages and the feelings that go into it. Mono-lingual US dad / mono-lingual Brazilian grandparents = problems.

Neither the grand parents nor the steph father who was granted custody (and not the grandparents) are quite fluent in English. Where did you get that Idea from.

Originally posted by spongebob Because I'm not a typical USA person who thinks they are right about everything. Too bad Sean's dad couldn't see that...

What's there not to see. The mother took the child and retained it illegally in Brazil. Although I can understand the feelings about it, the law is simple, when a child is being retained illegally, it must be returned to where he lived to decide on the custody.

But then the mom DIED, and custody was given to the STEPH FATHER.


I may be missing something, but what is it in that that Seans dad could not see.

The father never wanted to deny the kid to know its roots, but I find it totally understandable he doesn't want the grandparents to visit the kid, especially without anyone present. They just may take the kid and hop the border to mexico.

Originally posted by Megabyte Unless she had a problem with drugs or something really bad, it's very likely the US court would have given her the custody of the kid. Then she could happily go to Brazil and keep the kid there.

On what grounds? The kid wasn't even legally a Brazilian citizen.

Its much more likely that the US court would have given joint custody to the chhild in which case she could not leave the country.

Originally posted by Megabyte * If I were Sean's grandmother, I would also do everything in my power to keep him with me. Perhaps not lie about the father, since she didn't consider Sean could get upset if he found out she was concealing the truth – and he did. But I can't say I don't understand her – she kept living with that kid 5 years. Can we absolutely say she hated him?

Oh, so screw the father, my kid dies and I want his kid to substitute mine that died?

Even Brazilian law assumes automatic custody by the survivin parent, unless he's unable.

But it wasn't even the grandparents that got custody, it was the STEPH FATHER that was granted custody.

The reason this case got so terribly screwed up is because the steph father is a very prominent lawyer that specializes in family law. He knows judges and has family on the bench. He is also quite rich.

Seans father however initially had a lawyer that, imho, did not have much experience in thes kinds of cases, and that's how things got screwed up

Originally posted by sven Originally posted by Megabyte Unless she had a problem with drugs or something really bad, it's very likely the US court would have given her the custody of the kid. Then she could happily go to Brazil and keep the kid there. On what grounds? The kid wasn't even legally a Brazilian citizen. Its much more likely that the US court would have given joint custody to the chhild in which case she could not leave the country. Originally posted by Megabyte * If I were Sean's grandmother, I would also do everything in my power to keep him with me. Perhaps not lie about the father, since she didn't consider Sean could get upset if he found out she was concealing the truth – and he did. But I can't say I don't understand her – she kept living with that kid 5 years. Can we absolutely say she hated him? Oh, so screw the father, my kid dies and I want his kid to substitute mine that died? Even Brazilian law assumes automatic custody by the survivin parent, unless he's unable. But it wasn't even the grandparents that got custody, it was the STEPH FATHER that was granted custody. The reason this case got so terribly screwed up is because the steph father is a very prominent lawyer that specializes in family law. He knows judges and has family on the bench. He is also quite rich. Seans father however initially had a lawyer that, imho, did not have much experience in thes kinds of cases, and that's how things got screwed up

I'm not considering what's right or wrong now. I'm trying to be emphatic and to think of what I would have done if I were all these 3 people. The law is the law, and in this case there seems to be little doubt that he should have stayed there. However, I'm also weighting the feelings of all those people. Sean's father, I believed, loved him as much as his grandma, or his mother.

Pretend you're the grandmother, Sven. Your daughter just died, and you've spent 5 years raising the kid. Yes, an abducted kid. But you love him, it's your grandson. Would you easily let him go? The same goes for the mother and the father of that kid, of course.

Oh, wait. I have actually seen that interview. Let me break it into pieces.

1:18 – Oh, I see. That reporter states Sean said his father is "perfect." Indeed Sean said nothing like that.

1:20 - 1:28 - "The thing Sean wanted the most was to leave to the US as soons as possible." Indeed, I don't remember him saying that, just that he was bothered by the many reporters harassing him in Brazil. (Though honestly, I doubt it didn't happen in the US. "Good" reporters are always looking for news, whatever the price may be.)

1:40-1:47: "It seems the interview will be very positive to Sean's dad, but very negative to his family [in Brazil], at least that's what NBC said."

Mmmm... it indeed was a very positive interview for his dad, but I'm not so sure it was extremely negative to his family in Brazil. It was negative, sure, because it said he was abducted, but I don't see his Brazilian family being portrayed as "manipulative" or "evil."

2:30-2:38 – "But here in the US Sean's father is seen as a hero that fought to keep the custody of his son."

That sounds true to me, at least how the NBC interview portrays it.

2:50-2:56 – "And the mother and the stepfather are seen as criminals here in the US."

Well, the media does state he was abducted, but to what extent is his Brazilian family seen as criminals? I think it's not the NBC interview that states this itself, but rather Sean's father ("how can I trust them if they are still keeping lawsuits here in Brazil and don't agree with my conditions?")

Now, I do know that one of his conditions, according to one Brazilian interview (not that one,) is that the Brazilian family needs to give their passport to someone government order to ensure they'll not run. It doesn't help the grandmother refuses to do that ("I'm not a criminal, so I shouldn't have my passport retained!")

Reporter in Brazil, 3:02 – "So David Goldman prevents the approximation of both the American and the Brazilian press."

Rather misleading from the reporter in Brazil. The reporter in the US does say David Goldman didn't answer his calls, but he's not answering anyone else but NBC (that sounds a bit fishy to me).

4:00-4:17 – that reporter says the Brazilian family accepted all conditions that David Goldman imposed, including paying for the lawyers, and yet David won't allow them to visit Sean. There's an interview where she said she didn't agree to them all, but that was from July 2011. She didn't want to be interviewed now, so it's very hard to know what happened between 2011 and 2012 to make David refuse them to see Sean. David claims they're still moving the lawsuits. How long would it take to withdraw the lawsuits against David?

By the way, this is the interview with her grandmother.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbV8zTdZn78