I have had a chance to look at your links, open. Thanks again and the "Hot" is funny and true!
I wonder how things got to be so acrimonious between the Mother and Father that she would keep Sean from seeing him? I wish I could find more information about how she blocked his efforts to see Sean in that first year following their flight to Brazil. I also wish I could find more information on Sean's stepfather consciously alienating him from his father (as opposed to fighting him legally because of what he believes to be the best interests of the child, which of course leads to said alienation - such is the way of digging in on both sides).
Maybe I am missing something here - and I may well be. I just feel like I would have been in Brazil within months trying to see my child. It is not ever right for one parent to play such a manipulative card (ie - you give me custody or you can't see him) - clearly that is wrong on every level. But - for me - I know that I would definitely give up custody of my child (I don't care a bit about legal terms for intimate relationships) as long I could see my child and be a part of his life. That said - I understand I may be in a minority with that.
Again, I hate that both sides are so entrenched that they have lost sight of the fact that the best thing for the child at this point is a joint relationship - not all this legal posturing. I do agree that Brazil's judicial feet dragging has placed the stepfather in more of a power position and I can certainly understand the Dad's frustration with all of that.
For me, both sides have merit and both sides are missing the mark entirely - the mark being - what is best for this child now. This is a sad and complex case with no easy answers.
The mom just decided she wanted to move back home and leave David. I don't think things were acrimonious between the couple at all. David was very surprised by his wife's kidnapping of Sean and permanent return to Brazil. He had no clue things were bad. I have seen a few cases of women from third world countries, rich or not, who see the U.S. as the Garden of Eden with streets paved with gold. All they know is what they see on t.v.. When Bruna came here and saw that most people live an average life and that she would likely have to work, she was probably shocked and wanted out pretty quickly. I don't think she really loved David. She loved the idea of glamorous United States and an American husband. When her fantasy faded, she likely knew David would not simply allow her to take their son and go, so she planned and stole their child.
The info on the step-dad alienating Sean comes from a ruling from the courts down in Brazil who found, in an investigation, that the step-dad was actively alienating the child. Proof of this is also found in how they restrict access to Sean. David talks about this quite a bit. During one supervised visit, they were not shadowed closely by the monitor and they had fun, laughed, etc. Sean's step-family was watching and apparently did not like that. So, he was kept up late at night before the next visit, was visibly exhausted the day of that next visit and was supervised by a different monitor who stuck to them like glue, inches away, even jumping in the pool with them while they swam. This kind of monitoring is, in itself, a form of alienation. Having some third party hovering that close sends the child the message that the parent is dangerous. Also, who knows what the family told Sean after the first supervised visit but by the second, he was reticent and withdrawn . It all fits a classic alienation pattern.
I know you don't care about legalities, but as a family law attorney, I can tell you they are important. If you gave up custody as you stated you would, you would likely never see your child again. When a person gives up custody rights, they lose the power to see their child. If David had agreed to do so, he would have no recourse at all if the mother then said, "Well, I've changed my mind. You can no longer see your son." Maintaining custody is necessary if the left-behind parent wants ANY chance of seeing their child again. David has had the advice of attorneys and they are looking out for his best interest and that of his son, I'm sure.
As far as moving to Brazil, I have researched international abductions as part of my work. You should try to surf the net and read up a bit. It is gruesome what happens and it is why the Hague Convention included a provision against international kidnappings. When parents try to relocate to the country where the child has been taken, they usually have little luck maintaining a relationship with their child once there. The courts continue to rule against them regarding visitation and the kidnapping parent continues to try to thwart contact. The very act of international kidnapping is evidence of parental alienation. It is clear evidence that the kidnapper wants to sever the relationship between parent and child. They go to their native country where they know the judicial system and have more clout because they are citizens. They use nationalism to foster resentment by their home country against the "ugly American" interloper.
It's pure hell for the left behind parents. It is truly a Kafkaesque nightmare for them. I can tell you stories about what some parents have suffered trying to see their children in those countries. Horrible stuff. Germany is one of the worst offenders, BTW. For example, the court rules mom can see the child during a supervised visit once a week. She gets excited to see the child and goes to the visit. Paternal grandmother stays close by the whole time glaring at the child whenever the child shows interest in mommy. Right before the next visit, further restrictions are put on the visit. It's now at another location. Mom now only has two hours instead of four. Now the child can say he or she wants to terminate the visit early. (Of course someone is coaching the child to say so). Mom now cannot bring presents. Then, a psychologist who is taking notes must be involved. Minutes before a subsequent visit, mom is told the visit is cancelled because the psychologist observed the visits are "stressful" for the child. Keeping a kid up late, telling them horrible things about the visiting parent, closely observing during visits and interrogating the child after the visit, cancelling or rescheduling visits at the last minute, changing locations or visitation times suddenly, so the visiting parent can't get there on time, etc., are common tactics used to keep the left behind parent from maintaining a relationship.
Those who think a left behind parent can simply move to the country the child has been kidnapped to and maintain a relationship are completely in the dark about how these things work. The kidnapper does not want the other parent to ever be involved again, that's why these kidnappings happen and that's why moving to the new country does not work. Also, please remember, the courts of the nation to which the child has been taken, as well as the kidnapping parent, know that they have acted in violation of international law and the laws of the country of origin. So, they are not simply going to let the left behind parent have unlimited access to the child in the new country because he or she could easily take the child and run back to the country of origin, at any time, and get court orders there that prevent the child from being removed again. It's a risk that the offending parent and violating country do not want to take. And make no mistake, all of this is in violation of the Hague convention for a reason. It is not in the best interest of a child to be kidnapped. Studies show they suffer extreme psychological problems as adults, as a result of these events.
As far as your claim that both sides are so entrenched that they cannot see what is best for Sean, I disagree. Sean's dad has always looked out for his best interest. The step-dad has not. Being actively alienated and lied to by the step-father and maternal family about one's dad, is abuse. Further, severing the father-son bond by kidnapping the child and then restricting, refusing or limiting visits, is abuse. Finally, Sean has a strong bond still with his father who he loved intensely during his first four years. I think it will strange at first for him to leave Brazil and I think all efforts should be made for him to maintain contact with his sister, but the bond that still exists will shield Sean from too much psychological harm if he is able to move home, with his Daddy. On the other hand, I think keeping him from his Daddy, even though it is in a country he is now used to, will certainly cause and has been found to be causing psychological distress.
I have been following David's case closely for a few years. This man has dropped everything - his whole life, since Sean was taken, in an effort to maintain contact. It bothers me greatly that he is second-guessed about his efforts. The man does not stop, never has and never will. He has done everything he can to be with his son. He is tireless but broken-hearted and devastated. There is nothing you can suggest which he has not tried or considered but he keeps hitting new walls. Think of the latest rulings. One recent ruling held that David could have Sean six days a week if he moved to Brazil. Only a few days later, that ruling was overturned. That's the world of international kidnappings and that's what Sean and David have been subjected to.
She wanted her spoiled rich lifestyle back. She said that she wanted to go home where people knew her - knew her name. She came from a very prominent family in Rio. I guess living the suburban life in New Jersey wasn't what she wanted afterall. I think she was more in love with the idea of being married to an International Model than being married to David. Her divorce in Brazil is not recognized in the US either because she was married in the US.
raying:
, but as a parent. It's heartbreaking that these two grown men have not been able to work this out in a different manner.
