Tuesday, December 22, 2009

David Goldman Wins His 5 Year Custody Battle


David Goldman finally won his 5 year battle to bring his son home from Brazil.

That's a good thing, right?

BACKGROUND: The following is the first paragraph from David Goldman's own website:

"I married Bruna Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro in Eatontown, New Jersey, USA, on December 17, 1999. We had a son, Sean Goldman, born in Red Bank, NJ on May 25, 2000. On June 16, 2004, I drove Bruna, Sean and Bruna's parents to Newark Airport for a planned 2-week vacation to her parent's home in Brazil. Bruna arrived in Brazil and called me that day to tell me our marriage was over, she and Sean were not returning to the US, and if I ever wanted contact with my son again, I would have to sign custody over to her. I have never signed any papers granting Bruna custody of our son, Sean."

RED FLAG! This tells me that Sean's mother, David's wife, had a premeditated plan to take her son and run away from David. The very first thing she did when she arrived in Brazil was to call him and tell him it's over, she's keeping her son, and his only option was to sign over custody.

There is something going on here. Sometime between December, 1999 and June, 2004, his wife decided she needed to take her son and runaway.

More from his web site:

"Although Bruna and I were still legally married in the United States, Bruna obtained a divorce in the eyes of Brazil (without my presence or knowledge). It is my understanding that Bruna became pregnant and remarried in Brazil...On August 22, 2008, Bruna tragically passed away during childbirth."

Thus began an epic 5 year, intercontinental custody battle that got played out on morning TV shows with David Goldman playing the victim of a vast latin-american conspiracy to keep him away from his son.

Today, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled in David Goldman's favor. He gets to bring his son home to America. It's a Hallmark card. It's an Oxygen network mini-series. A wronged but loving father fights for his son and wins.

We're all verklempt!

But let's take a step back and look at this with some objectivity. I've blogged about this before.

Bruna, David's wife and Sean's mother, apparently felt like she needed to take her son and run away to the protection of her family in Brazil.

Why? We don't know. But if you felt like you needed to take your son and run away to your home country to be surrounded by your family and separated from your ex by two continents and many countries, don't you think you would have a good reason?

When Bruna took Sean to Brazil, Sean was only 3 years old.

Question: How much of your life from birth to 3 years old do you remember?

Answer: NONE!

Sean is now 9 years old! All he remembers is growing up in Brazil.

All of the people he has formed emotional attachments to are in Brazil. The only family he knows, is in Brazil.

He has gone to Kindergarten, 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade in Brazil. Every friendship he has ever formed is in Brazil.

If David Goldman REALLY had the best interest of his son at heart, he would have spent the past 5 years working on reaching some sort of accommodation with Sean's Brazilian family that would allow him to be a part of Sean's life.

But no. For whatever selfish reasons are motivating him, David Goldman has insisted on yanking his son Sean from the only life his son has ever known, and pulling him in to a foreign environment where he has no friends, no family and no cultural affiliation.

I'm a parent.

As a parent, it is my duty to put the welfare of my child above any desires, agendas or priorities I may have for my own life.

I don't think David Goldman is doing this.

I think that for 5 years he has been OBSESSED with getting his son back at all costs. I don't know what his motivation was. Revenge against his ex for leaving him and marrying someone else, revenge against her family for honoring her wishes, I have no idea.

But I don't think he ever gave any consideration to the idea that uprooting his son from the only life that he has ever known might be detrimental to his son.

I have never understood this sort of vindictive, territorial, possessive custody battle.

Parental needs and egos should ALWAYS fall way behind the best interests of the children.

In the Goldman case, the best interests of Sean Goldman would appear to be to leave him in the only environment he has ever known, with the only family he has ever bonded with, and the only friends he has ever made.

I think David Goldman is a selfish, vindictive douche who is using his son as an emotional weapon against he ex-wife's family.

If he truly cared about his son, he wouldn't be spending so much time and energy to fuck up his son's life.


Faith said...

Um, she essentially stole their son away from him. You're right on one thing...we don't know the reasons behind it.

But it's still HIS KID. Not the child's grandparents'. Not the Brazilian government's. HIS. He should have gotten his child back when he was 3, FFS. Or his wife should have gone through correct channels to have the father proven to be whatever beast he is that you're making him out to be (not that we know he isn't...I just haven't seen anything to show that he's some kind of villain, or whatever it is you've convinced yourself he must be!), and been granted sole custody before she decided to run off with him like that.

The Brazilian chick was in the wrong on this one. If she was being abused, if her kid was being abused, etc, etc...she needed to pursue legal action here IN AMERICA. Not kidnap their kid and run away!

Why are you so convinced that David Goldman was the bad guy here? Maybe his Brazilian wife was off her fucking rocker! Who knows? Do you have any links to proof of problems that they'd been experiencing, or of friends testifying that she was running away from an abusive situation, essentally saving the child's life? Because unless you do, then you're pretty much convicting this guy of being an asshole without any reason behind it, except for the fact that the chick was going on a vacation, and then decided to pull a fast one. Which really doesn't prove anything, if you ask me.

Bull E. Vard said...

Finally! Someone advocating a statute of limitations on kidnapping. If you can snatch a kid and hide him for 5 years, that kid should be yours for life. You're abso-fucking-lutely correct. It's such a pain in the ass for a kid to spend the rest of his childhood with a loving father when he's spent 5 years away. There's no reason the father should even want the kid back. What kind of fucking idiot father would want his kid back after 5 years away. He should have just poured himself a shot of something strong, reflected on the time he had with his son, went to bed and start a new life in the morning.

You're so right! I can't believe it's you who finally came up with a great defense for kidnapping. Elizabeth Smart and that kid in Missouri would have been so much happier with their abductors because it was just about the only life they ever knew. Fucking-A right!

Michelle said...

XO, I think you're wrong on this one. It's his kid and he wants him back. I don't even like kids, yet I understand the basic concept of wanting to raise your own child.

Absolutely Feisty said...

I'm your bff and I'm gonna tell you your wrong too. lol

If someone steals my baby you bet your sweet ass I'm going to get him back.

He probably has a whole family here he can get to know and love that have missed out on several years of his life too. This case pisses me off. That is all LUMI

Old Fart said...

This was a kidnapping, plain and simple.

Just because you are a parent, doesn't mean that what you would chose to do is what is right, or what anyone else *should* do. It's just your opinion.

The bottom line is a crime was committed. It will soon be rectified.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe what I just read...especially coming from a parent. Sean being in Brazil for the last 5 years has nothing to do with his father (David). I could understand David Goldman willingly abandon custody and allowed all the years to pass and then out of the clear blue wanted to regain custody...but that has never been the case. The length of time Sean spent in Brazil is because of this well connected family and the Brazilian courts bending over to this family left and right. Kids are lot more resilient...he belongs with his father. Period

Midtown Miscreant said...

How much did you have to drink before you penned this one?

Xavier Onassis said...

OK. Let me take another stab at clarifying my position.

First, The last 2 sentences were a bit harsh and uncalled for. So yes, MM, I have had a drink or two before I posted. Thanks for noticing! LOL!

Now, I really don't think that David Goldman is wrong for wanting his son back or that he shouldn't have tried. I certainly would have done mostly the same thing if I were in his position.

My main point was that he appeared to be so myopic and manic about his quest that I don't think he ever took a deep breath, looked at the matter objectively and asked himself what was in the best interests of his son?

In other words, was he doing this for his son or was he doing it for himself?

Let me give you an example.

My ex and I moved from Blue Springs, MO to Richmond, MO when GTO was about 3 years old.

A few years ago, when GTO was living in Ricmond with my ex, her and her mom were NOT getting along. GTO was going through puberty, her mom was going through menopause and it was a tiny fucking house.

GTO would call me crying, wanting to leave her mom and move in with me in Liberty.

Anyone who knows me knows how much I love my daughter. I'd jump in front of a bus for her without even thinking about it. And, from time to time she has suggested I do so. But I digress.

As awesome as it would have been to get my daughter away from The Egg Doner and have her with me 24/7, I said no.

The reason I said no is because Richmond was the only home she had ever known. She didn't remember Blue Springs at all. She was too young! From her perspective, she lived in Richmond her entire life. It's where she went to school and it's where all of her friends were.

I decided that it was in her best interest to tough it out with her mom and stay in the environment where she was excelling academically and socially.

What was best for her was more important than what I wanted.

This is all I'm saying.

I don't think David Goldman ever took a step back and looked at things from his son's perspective.

I doubt that his son remembers him. I doubt that his son has any emotional attachment to him. All he knows is this American guy keeps trying to take him away from the only home, family and friends he has ever known.

Now, about phrases I see thrown around like "...stole their son away from him", "...kidnapping...", "...snatch a kid and hide him...", "...abductors...", "...steals...", "...crime was committed.".

Let's be very clear here. No laws were broken, no crime was committed. None. This was a straight up custody battle.

David and his wife were still married when she took her son to Brazil to visit her family. David even drove them to the airport.

Her decisions to stay in Brazil, keep her son with her, divorce David and marry someone else were all perfectly legal.

Deplorable? Hell yes! Cruel? Fuck yeah! Stupid and selfish? Yes and yes!

But criminal? No.

To use MM's phrase, the situation was as fucked up as a soup sandwich, but no laws were broken in America or Brazil.

Old Fart said...

[Her decisions to stay in Brazil, keep her son with her, divorce David and marry someone else were all perfectly legal.

Deplorable? Hell yes! Cruel? Fuck yeah! Stupid and selfish? Yes and yes!

But criminal? No.]

I thought you were smarter than that.
It's called "International Child Abduction", AKA, kidnapping. Go read: Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at the Hague on October 25, 1980.
His ex-wife and her parents PLANNED the abduction. The mother did not have the fathers permission to abduct the child.

In your personal example, you got to make the decision whether your daughter would live with you or not... Mr. Goldman wasn't even given the option. His son was kidnapped.

I only wish his wife was still alive to see the boy returned to his father.

Xavier Onassis said...

Old Fart - abduct  /æbˈdʌkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ab-duhkt]
–verb (used with object) 1. to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, esp. to kidnap.

She didn't take her own son to visit her own family in secret or by force.

David drove them to the airport.

There was no abduction. There was no kidnapping.

And if David's wife and her family planned to take Sean to Brazil and never return, I have to ask why?

What would prompt a mother to take such a drastic action?

There are very few scenarios that make any sense.

Xavier Onassis said...

Don't get me wrong. I am not defending this woman or her actions.

I'm just saying we don't know what the motivations were on either side and this is not a criminal matter.

It's a sordid domestic dispute. It's a custody battle over a divorce. Nothing more.

I Travel for JOOLS said...

If you reversed the situation and it was Goldman and his parents and his new wife who had done exactly the same thing as Goldman's wife and her family, would you feel the same way. What if Goldman had taken his kid and simply moved to Israel or someplace like that? Can you imagine the chaos if people all over the world were simply allowed to do that?

No, this was kidnapping.

Xavier Onassis said...

JOOLS - "Can you imagine the chaos if people all over the world were simply allowed to do that?"

People all over the world are allowed to do that!

I'm not aware of any law (except maybe Sharia law) that prohibits a parent from taking their child somewhere and not coming back.

It wasn't kidnapping, it wasn't abduction and no crime was committed.

But this story isn't over. I'm quite certain we haven't heard the last of this.

Faith said...

"abduct  /æbˈdʌkt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ab-duhkt]
–verb (used with object) 1. to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, esp. to kidnap.

She didn't take her own son to visit her own family in secret or by force."

OMG! She most certainly did! If you don't think that she and her parents had that planned, then you are dilusional. They planned for it, in secret, which was why David unwittingly took them all to the airport and said his goodbyes, presumably (which is the key damned word throughout this entire saga, really) under the expectation that his wife and son would be returning in a couple of weeks, after their visit/vacation was over.

THAT is what makes it a kidnapping/baby-stealing/abducting fucked up mess.

Your obstinanace on this matter is kinda shocking, really. I see your logic, as it applies to your own family who was still relatively local to you, of course. But add Brazil into the equation. Add your Egg Donor running off with GTO without you knowing it was gonna happen. Add her saying, "Tough noogies, you never get to see her again! Mwahahahaha!" into the equation. Doesn't that help you see it from David's POV at all? Wouldn't you have lost your shit if something like that happened? Or would you just have set back and gone, "Oh well. Clearly she's in a happier place. I guess I just go on in life like I never had a kid."

I just cannot see that being the case.

Old Fart said...

For someone who wants the US to be more like the rest of Europe, you sure have a tough time understanding international law. There is a law regarding and defining International Child Abduction. The basic definition is that one parent takes the child to another country to live permanently without the other parents permission regarding the permanent move. You know, like... we'll just be gone for two weeks.

Her reasons for doing what she did are IRRELLEVANT. It was a crime as defined at the Hague in 1980, and signed by both the US and Brasil.

Anonymous said...

Hey - I am a mother and I ran away years ago from an abusive husband with my children. I am so totally with you on your thoughts about this kid staying in Brazil. The kid speaks a foreign language and has been pulled out of his home and school for this so called father - really thoughtful on his part. enough said.

GB, RN said...

But there is the assumption he was this horrible person, and there has simply been no claims to that. Not one word uttered of abuse. The maternal family never once appealed on the basis that they feared for the boy's life if he was allowed to return to the father. Their only argument for keeping him, "It's our culture for us to keep him."

Sorry, that logic doesn't wash.

As far as we know, Mom was homesick, and Dad had no intention of ever moving out of the country. Mom decided she wanted to have her cake and eat it too, with the help of her parents. And, as harsh as this is going to sound, her dying while giving birth sounds like Karma biting her in the ass.

I'm glad the boy is back with his father. Just like I felt that Elian belonged with his father, even if it was in Cuba. My only regret is that Goldman had to walk through the fires of hell to do it. Surely, XO, you can recognize the fierce parental love that drove him. Malice and contempt would not have carried him through five years.

Children are young and can adapt and he's not going to be ruined for life. He's got a loving family eagerly waiting for his return. I'm sure it will be a cold day in hell before Goldman allows him to be alone with Gramma and Grampa Brazil. I'd feel the same way.

Anonymous said...

Re-adjustment?? NO?? Middle of a school year with no language skills?? That's hard to recover from overnight - they could have worked together for language skills and familial adjustments at the very least - It shows the fathers selfish character.

Anonymous said...

I agree with everything you said and it's so nice to hear a rational opinion on this case. David Goldman strikes me as an extremely egotistical guy who really could not care less about his son, not really. To him it's about winning.

Speaking as someone who moved to New Jersey from Brazil when I was 7 and never wanted to be here, I can tell you Sean is going to have a hell of a time adjusting. Imagine living in Rio for five years and then moving to suburban New Jersey ...

I feel so sad for this little boy, and I suspect Goldman has probably lost him forever. He may resent his father for the rest of his life. And Goldman of course will blame the Brazilians instead of taking any responsibility for the role he played.

There's something really weird about him. Watch the interviews with this. He seems devoid of any emotion. The guy is plan weird.

Anonymous said...

Man, I have to admit that you are very clever and you don't seem to loose the focus even behind the smoke cloud around this. People are not seeing this and for what ever reason the mainstream US media is not being imparcial. I would like to add the following: Why the guy never peeked his son school ? never saw his son running free in the Beach ? why ? why only now ? Why the US consulate complaint about the step father media expousure delivering the kid in the Consulate walking ? while David went back to US in a charted flight by NBC ? this hurts me inside. I know the father has the rights, but there seemed to be no love behind, only a ego battle.

Anonymous said...

-Why david accepted 150K a year ago from the Brazilian family ?
-Why he made a deal with NBC for the story..charted plane ?
-Why US media / NBC showed Sean's Face with the waiver of David ?
-Why David never saw his kid ? he was walking free from the school, beach ..etc... no email, no mail, no phone... and even no present.
- Who is father knows.... if your son is "kidnapped", you would kidnap him back at all cost, even if you have to kidnap him back again or thru other illegal method... why he delayed 5 years ?
-Why the politics + media entered in the scene only for this case, where there is 70 cases similar cases between brazil / Us (both directions) ?
-Why Lautenberg held a Bill that actually was a benefit for the US tax payers from import tax of 139 countries and CNN/NBC said it was to benefit Brazil (china products were most affected) ?
-Why mainstream US media tried to make this a US vs Brazil battle ? Most Brazillian were supporting David.
-Why David never mentioned he faked signature of his wife to withdraw cash from her US bank account.
-Why NBC chartered flight news coverade was a fiasco: only got one picture of the kid smilling in a picture with a sun glass !!!
-Why David not even had a shirt or a present to give to his son he does not see for 5 years, the kid travelled with a Brazillian gold medal T-Shirt.
-Why only David alone from his family was there ? Why only David alone is in Orlando now with his son ? why not his grand father joined them ? Only 1 family member ?
-Why David in the plane interview was saying that he hoped that his son slept more in the trip, otherwise he would have to keep talking to him and he was tired (see NBC interview in the charted flight) ? If you stay 5 years without seeing your son, you want to talk to him 24 hrs / 24 hrs a day !!!

Anonymous said...

I admire people like you and I would like to be your friend for this !!!! You don't get influenced by the media / politics effect. I know David has the right, but it seems very doggy why he did not go there.... any real father would have turned into Rambo in case of a Kidnapping. Brazil is an open country, it is not like USSR to get in and see the kid in the school or in the appartment swimming pool.
Very sad and very shocking people don't see this.

Anonymous said...

I moved from Rio to NJ when I was 9, it was very difficult. I hated my father for a long time for this. Today I have more then 30 and I have lived in many countries.
David lost his son forever.

Anonymous said...

From what I've read Goldman did not want to maintain contact and accept visitation, etc because he wanted his wife and her family to come back to the US to settle the custody dispute in this country, as is specified in the Hague Treaty. I read somewhere that he said that if he had gone down there and come to some agreement with them that he would have been giving his consent to what they did, which he saw as illegal.

And this is what really gets me about this guy, that it was more important to him that he be right, than he see his son and be involved in his life. He seems hard-headed and egotistical, and I am sure these qualities contributed to his wife leaving him. I can't imagine a guy taking his son away from the only family he has known for five years on Christmas eve. What kind of a guy does that? Certainly not a loving father. A selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed father maybe ... as if Disney world could make up for everything this boy has lost ...

Anonymous said...


DangerousDaisy said...

Christ, you need to be bilingual to read most of the posts here.

Women don't need a reason to run/seek divorce/discontinue communication. Rarely does a woman walk into my office and have a reason for divorcing. They're just tired of the shit, whatever that means. Usually there's no good reason.

I haven't seen any claims where this guy's a jerk/bad father/bad husband. I think if someone had taken my kid, I'd be somewhat complacent, maybe even numb, after 5 years of hell.

If we get a divorce in, and there's a passport or dual citizenship in another country, we immediately demand it be turned over. For just this thing.

It happens regularly. What doesn't happen regularly is the kid coming back.

It's called parental kidnapping. Check out: 28 USC Sec. 1738A. 28 § 1738A.

Yeah, there are laws against it.

Anonymous said...

I also wonder what exactly was going on with this family. I have a Brazilian friend who tells me that the media there portrays the father in a very different light. According to them, he was very abusive, which was why she stole her son and fled... Who knows if this is true - I guess we will wait and see. In a few years, the son will tell his side of the story.

Joe said...

It took me a day or two to think about this, X, but I really don't agree with you. The points have been well made by others. My son lived with his mom because I didn't make him nor adopt him and I was not in a legal position to take him. He did live with us for a short while and it was good for all of us. I so see the father's point. His son got taken away like mine did and he had every right to get him back. I think it was in the child's best interests to be with his dad.

Michael MacDonald said...

Now that commentary on your opinion piece has begun to taper off, kindly allow me to address some misconceptions or perhaps confusion in the submissions of your readership without weighing in on whether anyone's actions in the Goldman case were "in the best interests of" the child himself.

First, there is a reason that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction contains the words "civil aspects", and this is because it covers situations where the removal of a child from one country to another was not a criminal act. Thus, even if one is on the losing end of a Hague petition, this does not mean that the act of removal being corrected by application of the Convention was criminal.

Second, although there are laws against parental abduction in the United States, as some of your readers pointed out, those laws appear not to have applied to the mother's removal of her son to Brazil because no such charges were brought against her in the three years following her removal of the child from the United States, while the mother was still very much alive. It is quite possible that there is a United States Attorney's decision or a memorandum of the Attorney General of New Jersey concurring with this position, by which the father's request to press international parental child abduction charges was refused. I am curious to know whether anyone reading this has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Justice, or made a similar request in New Jersey, for those records, if any such records exist.

Third, and despite NBC's spin on the highly unusual fact situation of the Goldman case, at no time after the untimely death of the child's Brazilian mother has the Goldman story really been about child abduction. Rather it concerned whether a surviving parent's "parental rights" must take priority over all other considerations in a dispute over child custody. One need only consider that Mr. Goldman's case before the courts of Brazil would not have been affected in the least had no allegation of kidnapping been made to see that the kidnapping angle was just a convenient public relations hook. His case depended solely on the fact that he is the surviving parent.

By colluding with Mr. Goldman to convey his story as one of child abduction, NBC helped him to leverage to his advantage the frustration of certain American parents with children living abroad. The resulting media firestorm and public interest helped no one but those with financial interests in the matter. Certainly it had no effect on the Brazilian judiciary.

Was it a good decision on Mr. Goldman's part to seek to politicise his child custody case? Your give-and-take with your readership demonstrates that people can rationally hold different opinions on the answer to this question.

(continued below)

Michael MacDonald said...

(continued from above)

Finally, your readers may be surprised to learn that this is not the first case that has been improperly packaged as a matter of parental child abduction. Such allegations are standard fare in international disputes over the exercise of parental responsibility. I would point your interested readers to the ongoing Bobo - Uttley case and the Hower case for compelling illustrations of the abuse of criminal process to influence the outcomes of such disputes.

Unfortunately the all-important factual nuances of individual cases are often improperly glossed over by reporters with vested interests in their stories. A similar conflict of interest arises in another organization, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (USA), which falsely advertises as "missing" children whose location is entirely well known and established, as in the Goldman case. More "missing children" = more federal funds for the Center. The Center already receives over $40 million annually in federal funding based on misleading statistics and fraudulent cases of child "abduction". Its CEO, Ernie Allen, rakes in a cool $1 Million in taxpayer money every year. In his recent testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the United States Congress, at which Mr. Goldman also testified, Mr. Allen finally appeared to admit that a full one-third of his Center's current international cases are probable if not certain cases of missing child fraud.

We lament the increasing polarization and politicization of issues related to children of mixed ethnic origins, and ask that you and your readers support the voices of moderation when addressing these admittedly emotional issues.

Michael MacDonald

Xavier Onassis said...

Mr. McDonald - Thank you for your insightful commentary. There certainly appears to be more to this case than what we have seen reported in the American news networks, some of which seem to have a direct financial interest in the case.

Joe said...

It didn't occur to me when I wrote the first time, (damn that soft brain) but this could have been me as a child.
My mom took me as a very young child and disappeared in the middle of the night. Literally. I've not seen my birth dad since I was 2 or 3. And, my mom remarried. My new dad never adopted me.
I can easily see if my mom had died and my birthdad could find me, me being in the same situation as young Sean. What would have been in my best interest as a child? Continuing to live with my step (though I don't call him that) dad, or having my birth dad come and take me back, after not knowing him for years. So, maybe you're not so wrong after all. I should have thought about this sooner and in more detail, but age sucks!

Anonymous said...

I would never have allowed cameras on the face of my son inside my own home. David Goldman can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but he can not fool all of the people all of the time. It is all about money, in my view. NBC should extricate itself from what it may appear to be the explotation of a minor for ratings.

Anonymous said...

2. Court documents:
Grandparents, in court in N.J. for abetting a kidnapping.(ohhh, I thought it wasn't illegal?) per their testimony, the reason the mother left, She was unhappy, she thought she was marrying a rich, international model, and now she was living the life of a New Jersey housewife. She had to WORK!!!! In Brazil she has maids!!!! She was unhappy being an Italian teacher at a school, she was tired!!! She complained that the husband was always working.

THAT was time for the family to say, he punched her, he hit the child, he was a bum.

The money???? The state of N.J. froze their assets due to their complicity in the "KIDNAPPING"
After several years the father agreed to lift the freeze, in return for LEGAL FEES $150,000.

All the documents and recordings are on a web site set up by friends of the father to assist in the publicity necessary to get him back and hopefully to educate the public on the facts, if only they took the time to read them.
Now I have only one more question for you.
I Know it's easy to answer when you know it's not going to happen, right?
You get a phone call tonight saying your ex- is springing a European Vacation on your daughter for Oh, I don't know, reaching puberty.....WOW, what a wonderful opportunity!!! Only weeks go by and you don't hear from them. You try to reach someone they know, you check the house....it's empty.....you call the police.....they say...don't worry, she's with her mother, she hasn't been kidanpped. Months go by.....hmmm. Now imagine she's 4 1/2. Remember her when she was 4 1/2? Think she wouldn't mind...just go on?
Sounds to me like you need to get busy filing a Hague Convention Application for the kidnapping of your daughter since you never thought you'd never see her again.
Of course that is unless you told her she couldn't mrove in with you because deep down inside, you couldn't be bothered with the 24/7 demands of caring for a child.

Go to the web site, bringseanhome.org and look at the documents and read the transcripts before you go spreading around your ignorance on the internet.

Oh, and by the way, The mother went straight to her old boyfriend, the lawyer for the Hague in Rio, who is friends with president Lula, so they had it figured out that they'd never have to give the kid back...or so they thought..the step father even tried to have the father's name "erased" from the birth certificate and replaced with his own by telling the magistrate that he didn't know where the father was, even though there was a Hague case filed in the court since the kidnapping, a hague case he managed to get his friends to bury. .nice people..they're not used to losing..ever.
Hope you have the nerve to let his post

Anonymous said...

To ALL those who posted without KNOWING a thing. Too bad none of you idiots trashing the father bothered to look into the facts of the case. The media does not have to spoon feed you ALL the facts. They don't have the time for that. Mostly the reason why there are so many ignorant people in this world, sitting on their couch, waiting for everything to be dropped into their laps. First of all, the posts with the broken English, posing questions that everyone knows the answer to, that would be the live at home,32 y/o movie star wannabee brother of the dead woman.
The questions he poses are all answered in the court documents.
Visits?....denied and blocked by the family.They would agree to a visit if he signed away his son's rights. (and then relied on their good graces to allow visits? come on a foreigner in a foreign country?) Presents?....returned unopened by the family(taken into court as evidence.....Phone calls?....(recorded and presented to the court)...hung up on.
What a STUPID remark, "he had to go home in the gold shirt bought for him by his grandmother!!!!!" Those people are SICK. The grandmother told the Brizilian press that if she saw a picture of him without the yellow shirt, she'd know that the father brainwashed the kid.......lololol.
So, now you take remarks from the kidnappers themselves, and use their logic and rational. If you got off your couch,(actually, you don't have to get off your couch, just quit playing internet games and do a little research) Court Documents including:
1. Taped phone conversation between the mother and father.
Dad:"You ran off and took Sean with you"
Mother (Screaming!!!) "I ran off because I wanted to separate and I knew you wouldn't let me have a separation,(meaning she knew he wouldn't let her take the kid to Brazil, even SHE knew it would be considered kidnapping and the proof that it was premeditated)

Michelle said...

Wow, some of your anon posters on this piece sound like creepy weirdos.

Fe said...

Yes. What Bruna did was out and out kidnapping. But I too want to know why she felt it necessary to sneak away --and with her parents help. Why did they think it necessary to go to such extreme measures? There is something extremely unsettling about David Goldman. This story is not over yet...

Anonymous said...

Bring $$$$$ (Sean) home!!

Anonymous said...

Why did she sneak away?.... If she would of told David her plans she'd been making the trip sans kid DUH! The only thing unsettleing about David Goldman is he didn't give those Brazilian Lawyers bazooka enemas!!!

Maureen said...

I believe she was promised to the wealthy family long before she married David and she married David to run away to the states. Her parents told her it was time to return to become this mans wife. This is the way things are done in countries like this. There is no indication that David has a temper, curses or would even harm his wife or child. I just simply think there was threat to the family that they must turn her over. Why did the step father walk Sean down the street to the American Conciliate instead of meeting in the underground parking deck to protect him? That is more damaging. There is a lot we will never know due to Bruna passing away. Did she die or was she killed because she produced a girl for this wealthy attorney instead of the boy she had already had with David? It was an embarrassment. It's awful to think this way, however this is probably what happen. Notice also , the stepfather was not around as much towards the end either it was all the grandmother.

Michael MacDonald said...

Hey Xavier,

Hope this message finds you well. Please pass around the attached story on the size of CEO Ernie Allen's compensation package. It's extremely topical, and we need to make a lot of noise about it if things are ever going to have a chance of changing for the better.



Anonymous said...

I can't believe your reasoning for siding with the Brazilian relatives. Kidnap the child to another country and keep him there long enough that it's the only environment/family/friends that he's really known in his early life. That now gives you justification for keeping him?

Just because you didn't want your rugrat intruding in your life!

Kids are resilient and one day I hope he realizes how much his Dad loves him.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Goldman is a douche. He come across as a controlling nutcase& liar telling everyone what they want to hear. This terminology of HIS kid or HER kid is ridiculous. The child is not a piece of property that either owns. What Goldman did to this child by completely disrupting the child's life and wrenching him from the only family the child ever knew was reprehensible. Further, Goldman has now managed to come up with a way to make money off of the pain he caused his son.

Anonymous said...

Read the Book or listen to the Audio-Book...


Anonymous said...

Your a fucking idiot! The crazy ass mom is the one that caused any emotional damaged.....moron