Among other important rulings, Judge Pinto said that, in fact, there was now a second abduction (the second by the step-father who had no legal right to keep Sean after Bruna died). Lins e Silva will not be allowed to use the defense that Sean is “adapted to Brazil” and he cannot claim that Sean's “habitual residence” was Brazil at the time of the second abduction (wrongful detention). Upon the death of his mother, the right to custody of Sean as a matter of law — Brazilian law, no less — passed to his biological surviving parent, David Goldman. Since Goldman filed his second petition for return under the Hague Convention only 35 days after Bruna's death, the defense of adaptation to the new environment won't be accepted.

To quote Judge Pinto:
“In other words, and thinking in theory, it is not reasonable – indeed, it reaches the level of surrealism – to admit that a given person, devoid of familial power upon the minor – a third party -, objects to the delivery of the child to the father or the mother, or both, under the basis that the child is integrated into their new environment.

“To admit this possibility means to open dangerous gaps capable of constituting real absurdities. And the absurd, as is well known, cannot find refuge in the Judiciary.”

Judge Pinto then gave an example . . . theater of the absurd . . . stranger kidnaps child, raises child as his own, gets married, now the child has a “father” and a “mother” . . . and later “siblings.” Can anyone reasonably believe that the law would reward the kidnapper by refusing to return the child to his lawful parents (who have tracked him down) on the claim that the child is “adapted to Brazil?”

“Of course not!” (His exclamation mark) Judge Pinto said that it would be convenient for the court to leave the decision to Sean, but that doing so would be irresponsible and cowardly.

Explaining the difficulty in reunification, Judge Pinto discusses how Lins e Silva thwarted the court-ordered visitation by not being present when in October 2008 he was to allow David Goldman to see Sean and how later Lins e Silva placed restrictions on the visitation that were not in the court's order (confinement to the grounds, a supervisor within feet of David and Sean, for example).

My entire summary of Judge Pinto's June Decisions may be read here: http://tinyurl.com/lsfa8k

Other articles about David and Sean Goldman on my Blog may be accessed here: http://tinyurl.com/lcjk59

Jeanne M. Hannah

But no one talks about how little Sean felt when he was taken away from an obviously fun and loving daddy. Do you think he may have cried for his dad for weeks, do you think he was traumatized, in a strange land, changing everything he knew? They talk about how it will traumatize the boy to leave his “family” and go to a strange place.. But>>>>>>>isn't that EXACTLY what they did to him when they took him from AMERICA and his DAD??? Well children are resilient, and SEAN needs to know His Dad has been thinking of him and trying to see him EVERY DAY for 5 years!! Now WHAT kind of family harms a child like that by keeping love and the truth from HIM?

I am assuming that this is the first time you read about this case…….

So, here is a question for you. Is it your position there is no possibility that he indeed has done nothing wrong, or in your mind is it only possible that he is at fault somehow?

Yes, there is no case ever of a psycho woman taking out their anger and mental instability against a husband by using a child as a weapon against them unfairly, or making false charges.

All men are evil; all woman paragons of goodness.

” That shoud buffer some of what she was protecting him from.”

Can you share with us the facts you have to support your insinuation?