Ministro Vannuchi defende que Sean fique com a família brasileira

http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/mat/2009/04/22/ministro-vannuchi-defende-que-sean-fique-com-familia-brasileira-755379227.asp

RIO - O ministro da Secretaria Especial de Direitos Humanos (SEDH), Paulo Vannuchi, defendeu nesta quarta-feira, durante audiência na Comissão de Direitos Humanos da Câmara dos Deputados, em Brasília, que o menino Sean Richard Goldman, de oito anos, fique com a família brasileira, mas mantenha contato com o pai. O ministro Paulo Vannuchi defendeu também que o pai e o padrasto entrem em acordo sobre a guarda da criança.

Pedi aos advogados das partes que conversem sobre alguma possibilidade de a criança permanecer no Brasil, mas dentro de um conjunto de direitos do pai. O pai poderia visitá-lo quando quisesse, com a lei estabelecendo estes termos, e com a possibilidade, também, de o menino ir aos Estados Unidos. Não podemos partir do pressuposto de que, se a criança for aos Estados Unidos, ela será sequestrada - disse o ministro.

Vanuchi afirmou ainda que, mesmo se o pai tivesse cometido erros ou crimes, ele tem o direito de ver a criança. Segundo o ministro, o governo brasileiro tem mantido contato direto e recente com o presidente dos EUA, Barack Obama, o que geraria um ambiente favorável à solução do caso.

Durante a audiência na Câmara, o advogado da família brasileira tentou entregar um documento à Comissão com um relato de Sean, que, segundo o advogado, deseja ficar no Brasil. Mas o deputado Miro Teixeira (PDT-RJ) afirmou que a comissão não poderia receber uma transferência sigilosa porque não é uma Comissão Parlamentar de Inquérito (CPI).

Brazilian Federal Court Must Decide This Hague Case

http://www.embaixada-americana.org.br/index.php?action=materia&id=7796&submenu=1&itemmenu=10


Brazil and the United States have an international agreement about how to handle wrongful retention and wrongful abduction of children from their original countries of residence: The Hague Convention of 1980. Both countries are obliged to make sure that this treaty is enforced.

The U.S. Embassy notes that a case centering on this question is currently before the 16th Federal Court in Rio and we are respectfully awaiting the decision of that court. Brazil has an independent and professional judiciary. This is not a question that should be decided in the press or the court of public opinion.

The wrongful removal and wrongful retention of children from their homes, and the forced separation of parent and child is unnecessary and cruel. The United States has facilitated the return of seven children to Brazil since The Hague treaty entered into force between our two countries. We call on the office of the Secretary of Human Rights to support the return of all children wrongfully removed and wrongfully retained.

Law Enforcement and International Parental Abduction

http://hagueabductions.com/component/option,com_wordpress/Itemid,58/p,10

Cops Complicit in Parental Kidnapping?

I have created a poll for other parents to grade how helpful they have found local law enforcement in finding and returning their internationally abducted children. While the poll has not received enough results to have any statistical significance I suspect it will be consistent with my own personal experience in that they have been utterly useless.

After tracing emails to Mexico I emailed my wife to call me immediately and tell me what was going on. I did not tell her that I knew she was in Mexico. In short, terse two sentence emails she continued to tell me she was in Arizona and working to resolve her “family emergency.” A week passed and I sent her an email telling her I knew she was in Mexico and that if she didn’t stop lying about where she was or what she was doing I was going to go to the FBI and report her for kidnapping, which is when her emails stopped altogether. It seems she was playing for time to delay my reporting her for as long as possible. I remember thinking at that time that I didn’t want to involve law enforcement. Too often they make matters worse than they already are in family problems. I didn’t want my son’s mother in jail and there were still many doubts in my mind as to whether or not her intentions really were to stay in Mexico. I continued to send her emails telling her to stop whatever it was she was doing (she still had not, and never has told me what she was/is doing), because once law enforcement and the courts became involved there would likely be no turning back. Finally, I called the police to report a parental abduction. I remember thinking at the time that the police would activate some sort of amber alert protocol, pull in the FBI and began to darken the skies between the US and Mexico with attornies, diplomats and federal agents. Now i’m not normally naive, but I really thought that when a 13 month old baby goes missing it would be taken seriously. Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

A Durham Police officer came and I explained the story to him. After I finished he asked me if I had a custody order and I told him I did not, to which he responded, “well then she has custody, it’s not kidnapping.” I explained to him that she didn’t have a custody order either and he said that if no one had a custody order it was joint custody, to which I agreed and said doesn’t that mean she can’t just take him out of the state without my permission, much less out of the country? To which he replied by asking me, if she was in Mexico what did I want him to do about it? I was having hard time believing the way the conversation was going but I said, I don’t know how about doing your job? How about investigating, filling out a report and listing my son in the NCIC missing person’s database? You do investigate missing persons right? And he asked me, well you know he’s in Mexico right? I said yes. And then he told me, “then he’s not missing” Now I know there are those for whom geography isn’t a strong point, so I explained to him that Mexico was kind of big, it was a foreign country and the only reason I had to believe my son was there was by tracing the IP addresses of emails. I told him that, at a minimum, my son should be listed in the NCIC. He said he’d talk to his supervisor and get back to me.

I got a call about twenty minutes later from the officer to tell me that he talked to his supervisor and they couldn’t list my son in the NCIC missing person’s database because he was not missing. I was sure I had read that the police were supposed to list parentally abducted children in the NCIC system so I went online and found what I had read again and called the officer back to tell him that the US State Department website says:

“Contact your local police, file a missing person’s report, and request that your child’s name be entered into to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer database. This is a mechanism provided to you by the Federal National Child Search Act of 1990… Make this report and enter your child in the NCIC even if you think you know where your child is located in another country. If your local law enforcement is unaware of the legal requirements for immediate entry into NCIC, please let our office know.”

And gave him the URL of the State Dept website. He said he’d look into it. I did not hear back from the officer. My son was not listed in the NCIC and no report was ever filed.

A few days later I called the police station and asked to talk to a supervisor. I talked to a sergeant who also told me they couldn’t list my son in the NCIC since he wasn’t “missing” if he was with his mother. Once again I told them that federal rules required them to enter my son into the system, and she told me she’d talk to one of her colleagues that handle parental abduction cases. She called me back and told me that I was right they could list him in the NCIC database, but it wouldn’t matter, because if they found my son and he was with my wife, the officers on the scene would just let them go and remove him from the NCIC system since she had custody and he had been “found.” They suggested I hire a lawyer. Once again, no report was filed and my son wasn’t listed in the NCIC system.

I did some research and found a good attorney in Durham county who was able to get me on the courts calendar and get me an Ex Parte emergency custody order within days. Once I had the order I went back to the police station with it and they, reluctantly, filed a missing persons report and listed my son in the NCIC. Now that my son was “officially” missing I could go to the FBI. I will save that story for another time, but here’s a hint, they were not much better.

Brazil: Shame on You, O Globo, for Slander and Malice on Goldman Case

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10593/

Written by Jackie Greenberg
Wednesday, 04 March 2009

Dear O Globo Editors and Journalists, the article on the Sean Goldman case that was published on February 28th, 2009 in O Globo should embarrass each and every one of you. It is a shameless attempt at character assassination. As journalists, you have an obligation to investigate statements you publish, especially those in your article of such a slanderous and malicious nature, and report fairly.

Here are just some of the issues with your article that make me question Globo's journalistic integrity:

1. Your article states unchallenged that these families were totally open to a visitation with Sean if David had only pursued it. The question you need to ask is who was going to dictate the terms of these visitations, including the one Bruna's father so generously offered to fly David down for?

The reason this is important is they wanted David to do things on their terms, signing away rights and dealing with local family courts where they have the greatest influence. David was wise to avoid this on the advice of his attorneys.

It is quite interesting that you allow these families to claim they would have been so accommodating with visitations, yet the first time a court actually awarded a visitation, João Paulo Lins e Silva absconded with Sean for the weekend, after David had flown to Brazil to see his son for the first time in over four years. That clearly shows they were only ever interested in a visitation if it were on their terms.

2. You state: "Bruna won custody of her son and remade her life." Sure, in Brazil she did. But how about reporting that a US court (here is the original Court Order: http://www.bringseanhome.org/USOrder.pdf) declared her abduction illegal under New Jersey law, awarded custody to David, and ordered Bruna to return with Sean to the US for a joint custody hearing (which she ignored to her death)?

You mention a document Bruna sent to the court to justify her actions, yet fail to mention documents condemning her actions from an actual Court of Law (as opposed to one person's opinion). And even some Brazilian judges agreed the abduction was illegal. Did you bother to look through the court records?

Any unbiased expert on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction would tell you that what Bruna did was a clear violation of the Convention and exactly the kind of thing it was meant to prevent. In fact, you didn't even mention the Hague Convention, which is at the very root of the diplomatic crisis brewing between Brazil and the US. You conveniently left out all of these facts.

3. David has received donations through the BringSeanHome website but how does that prove he's in this only for the money, or even reasonably suggest it? The donations are to pay his legal costs associated with getting Sean back, which stand right now at over US$ 350,000. That still cost him US$ 200,000 after you subtract the US$ 150,000 settlement he received from Bruna's parents.

That settlement was the result of a child-snatching lawsuit, something very common in the US in these cases. Here is a document published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that on page 105 describes how left-behind parents of international child abductions can use this tactic:

http://www.ncmec.org/en_US/publications/NC75.pdf

and the language I'm referring to:

Child-Snatching Tort Suits

Consider a child-snatching lawsuit against the abductor and accomplices. See "Civil-Court Remedies If Your Child Is Abducted" beginning on page 21. If the abductor has assets remaining in the U.S., consider bringing a civil child-snatching lawsuit against the abductor in U.S. courts and attaching his or her U.S. assets.

This may serve as leverage to obtain the return of the child, and, if successful, may help finance an overseas investigation or legal battle. If the abductor has received help from friends or relatives who remain in the U.S. or have assets in this country, consider suing them as well. If you obtain a judgment against them, attach their U.S.-held assets.

Any lawyer who did not pursue this lawsuit in US courts would be guilty of incompetence. The suggestion in your article is that a "deal was made" in exchange for US$ 150,000. Where is the proof David agreed to anything other than releasing Bruna's parents (not Bruna) from that lawsuit, which again was a child-snatching lawsuit to help him in his battle to bring Sean back through leverage and the financing of his legal battle, having nothing to do with the ongoing Hague case with Bruna.

It is unethical to print the slanderous allegation that David is trying to profit from this case without attempting to verify its accuracy. Nowhere in the entire process since Sean's abduction did David ever stop fighting for Sean's return. And that is proven in the court records.

4. What proof is there that David has profited from selling Sean's image on mugs, T-shirts, etc.? That is totally unsubstantiated and makes readers wonder whether you took Luca Bianchi's word as gospel without asking for proof that this had indeed occurred. Did you click on the Internet link they've been sending around where they claim these items are for sale?

Have you researched where the items were being sold and who the seller was? David has tens of thousands of supporters around the world organizing rallies, email campaigns, etc. Some of them had the idea to make some of these items for a rally to help spread awareness of the case. The bottom line is it was not done for financial gain and David had nothing to do with producing the items and never saw any money from them.

Again, accusing David Goldman of being more interested in getting money out of this than actually winning back custody of his son is probably one of the most slanderous charges one can make of a father. Yet you allow these people to do it without challenging their statements or researching the matter yourselves.

5. Have you bothered to investigate Maria Augusta Carneiro Ribeiro's background? I did and it turns out she has been associated with kidnappings in the past and been in prison for her terrorist actions (see: US Ambassador Elbrick). She's hardly a reliable source for comments on this case given her own associations with kidnapping and her kinship with a kidnapper.

6. You quote Maria Augusta saying "there was never any attempt by the biological father to contact his son." That is simply untrue. There were many attempts. David has taped phone conversations where he was hung up on by Bruna's parents. And, at one point they also started sending letters and packages David sent to Sean back to David, unopened. No attempt to contact his son? Not on their terms perhaps.

7. You never mentioned that the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, the Brazilian Central Authority for the Hague Convention, through the Attorney General, initiated legal proceedings to secure the restitution of Sean Goldman to the US.

The Brazilian government is officially on record supporting Sean's return to his father in the US. Don't you think those are important facts to mention to the Brazilian people? Not as important as David and Bruna's sex life apparently.

8. And finally, you just purged one of your articles the other day of the names of all the Brazilian participants in this case. Why is it now okay to report those names, with the notable exception of course of Paulo and João Paulo Lins e Silva? If the media gag order was supposedly for the protection of the child, as was claimed, why is that no longer a concern of yours? I guess the need to protect the image of the Lins e Silvas and Bianchis is more important now, once you saw they were losing the battle in the court of public opinion.

And just a brief comment about your strategy of writing a slanderous article about David Goldman and claiming you tried to contact him for his side of the story. When did you call him, the evening before you published? Presumably you had been working on this story for at least a few days. To pretend you made a sincere effort to contact David is difficult to believe.

By publishing a one-sided hit job on David Goldman it is apparent you're trying to turn this case into a he-said-she-said regarding David and Bruna's marital situation. That's tabloid journalism at its finest. This is a story about a man who wants his son back, a son who was abducted by his late wife and was never held accountable.

That crime is being perpetuated by João Paulo and Paulo Lins e Silva, who are using their legal knowledge and influence in the Brazilian judiciary to manipulate the court proceedings and circumvent the laws they pretend to defend. How disgusting!

One day, after Sean is finally returned home, history will look back on this case, and it will not look back kindly. Not only will people come to understand the human rights and children's rights violations that the Lins e Silva and Bianchi families perpetrated, but also how many in the Brazilian media aided in these illegal, immoral, and inhuman acts of two corrupt and arrogant families by not reporting the facts of the case.

N.J. Senators Say Son Belongs With Father in United States

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=307802

Press Release of Senator Lautenberg
Lautenberg, Menendez Call on Brazilian President to Take Action to Return Sean Goldman to Father

N.J. Senators Say Son Belongs With Father in United States; Request Meeting With Brazilian Ambassador to Settle International Custody Dispute

Contact: Lautenberg Press Office (202) 224-3224
Thursday, February 5, 2009



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today called on Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to follow international law and assist in the return of Sean Goldman to his father in the United States. Sean Goldman, who is eight years old, was taken to Brazil by his mother Bruna Goldman in 2004 and kept in Brazil without the consent of the boy’s father – David Goldman. David Goldman has since waged a legal battle to get his son back.

Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Abduction of Children, of which both the U.S. and Brazil are signatories, a child who is a habitual resident in one party country, and who has been removed to another party country in violation of the parent's custodial rights, is to be returned to the country of habitual residence.

Bruna Goldman passed away in 2008. Sean is currently in Brazil with his stepfather. In January, Sen. Lautenberg personally met with David Goldman and U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Clifford Sobel in separate meetings about the abduction case. A copy of the Senators’ letter is attached and pasted below:


Dear President Lula:

We are writing to bring your attention to an international custody dispute involving David Goldman, a United States citizen from New Jersey, and his son, Sean Goldman. In 2004, Sean, a United States citizen, was taken to Brazil by Mr. Goldman’s late wife, Bruna Goldman, for a two-week vacation. Once in Brazil, Mrs. Goldman informed Mr. Goldman that she would permanently stay in Brazil with the child without Mr. Goldman’s consent. Since that time, Mr. Goldman has not been permitted to visit with or gain custody of his son, even after Mrs. Goldman’s death in 2008.

For the past four years, Mr. Goldman has been working within Brazilian and U.S. courts, to secure return of his son and assert his parental rights. On August 26, 2004, two months after the child’s arrival with his Mother in Brazil, the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey issued a ruling ordering that Sean be returned to the United States. When the child was not returned, Mr. Goldman filed judicial proceedings with the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro based on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Abduction of Children. Under the Hague Convention, of which both the U.S. and Brazil are signatories, a child who is a habitual resident in one party country, and who has been removed to another party country in violation of the parent's custodial rights, is to be returned to the country of habitual residence.

The failure to return Sean to Mr. Goldman appears to be in direct contradiction to the intentions of the Hague Convention. It is our understanding that Mr. Goldman has been prevented from securing the return of Sean to the United States based upon Article 12 of the Hague Convention, which states that it is within a judge’s discretionary power to refuse return of a child if the application for return is made more than one year after the date of the taking and the child has become settled in the new environment. However, this application of Article 12 hardly seems fair under these circumstances, and seems inconsistent with the language and purpose of the Treaty. Mr. Goldman did petition for the return of his child within a year of his being taken to Brazil. Additionally, it would set a dangerous precedent to deny parental rights based of the length of time for which the parent was denied access to the child and time-consuming judicial proceedings.

Further, with the death of Bruna Goldman, any possible argument of the child having become acclimated in the care of his Mother has dissipated. Mr. Goldman is Sean’s remaining biological and legal parent.

As we are sure you can appreciate, these four years have been extremely painful for Mr. Goldman. He has not been permitted to see his son Sean since 2004 – and even when Mr. Goldman traveled to Rio de Janeiro in October 2008 for visitation ordered by the Brazilian court, Sean was hidden from him and those rights were violated. Many diplomatic efforts have been made to ensure Sean’s return to his father. The U.S. Embassy in Brazil has repeatedly urged Brazilian authorities to recognize Mr. Goldman’s paternal rights and the international and national laws that favor his case. Furthermore, the Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, the central authority for the Hague Convention in Brazil, has sent a request to the Office of the Attorney General for the return of Sean to the U.S.

Given the strong and friendly relationship between our two countries, we are writing to respectfully ask that you examine this case and take appropriate action to reunite Sean and his father. We also request a meeting with Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota at his earliest possible convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

House of Representatives calls upon the Brazilian government to fulfill its obligation under international law

http://bringseanhome.org/hr125.html

111th Congress
1st Session

H. RES. 125

Calling on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 4, 2009
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION

Calling on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States.

Whereas, on May 25, 2000, Sean Goldman was born in Red Bank, New Jersey, the son of David Goldman and Bruna Bianchi Ribeiro Goldman who were married in New Jersey in 1999;

Whereas Sean Goldman lived with his parents the first four years of his life in Tinton Falls, New Jersey;

Whereas, on June 16, 2004, Sean and his mother Mrs. Goldman left together with Mrs. Goldman's parents for a planned vacation to Mrs. Goldman's parents' home in Brazil ;

Whereas upon her arrival in Brazil , Mrs. Goldman called Mr. Goldman to advise him that their marriage was over and that she would not be returning Sean to his home in New Jersey;

Whereas Mr. Goldman has been trying unsuccessfully since June 17, 2004, to secure the return of his son from Brazil ;

Whereas, on August 26, 2004, the Superior Court of New Jersey awarded custody to Mr. Goldman, ordered Mrs. Goldman and her parents to immediately return Sean to the United States, and indicated to Mrs. Goldman and her parents that their continued behavior under United States law constituted parental kidnapping;

Whereas, on September 3, 2004, Mr. Goldman filed an application for the immediate return of Sean to the United States under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the `Hague Convention');

Whereas the Federal Republic of Brazil acceded to the Hague Convention on October 19, 1999, and the Hague Convention entered into force between Brazil and the United States on December 1, 2003;

Whereas, pursuant to article 12 of the Hague Convention, the judicial authority of Brazil was required to order Sean's return to the United States `forthwith,' customarily defined under international law as within six weeks after an application for return has been filed;

Whereas, on October 13, 2005, the Brazilian court refused to return Sean in contravention of Brazil's obligations under the Hague Convention even though it found that Sean was a habitual resident of the United States and, pursuant to international law, had been wrongfully removed and retained in Brazil ;

Whereas, on August 19, 2005, the Superior Court of New Jersey found both Mrs. Goldman and her parents to be in willful contempt of the court's orders and further found Mrs. Goldman's continued retention of Sean actionable under the International Parental Kidnapping and Crime Act of 1993 as well as New Jersey's criminal statutes;

Whereas the contempt of Ms. Goldman and her family continued after the court's August 19, 2005, order and Mr. Goldman was afforded no contact with his son;

Whereas Mrs. Goldman obtained a divorce from Mr. Goldman without notice through the Brazilian courts and soon thereafter married João Paulo Lins e Silva;

Whereas, on August 22, 2008, Mrs. Goldman tragically passed away during childbirth leaving Sean without a mother and separated from his biological father in the United States;

Whereas in September 2008, Mr. Goldman traveled to Brazil to visit and rightfully reclaim full custody of his son, Sean;

Whereas, upon his arrival, Mr. Goldman learned that Mr. Lins e Silva had petitioned the Brazilian courts for custody rights over Sean and also had secretly petitioned the Brazilian courts to replace Mr. Goldman's name with his own name on a new birth certificate to be issued to Sean Goldman, despite the fact that Mr. Goldman, not Mr. Lins e Silva, is Sean's biological father;

Whereas in October 2008, Mr. Lins e Silva failed to make Sean available for a visitation ordered by the Brazilian Federal Court with his father, and absconded with Sean for the duration of the scheduled visitation;

Whereas Brazilian law enforcement did not provide Mr. Goldman with Sean's location during the visitation ordered by the Brazilian court and did not enforce the visitation order, even though they were informed about Mr. Lins e Silva's failure to make Sean available for the visitation;

Whereas, the Government of Brazil , through the Hague Convention, is obligated to `take all appropriate measures to secure within [its territory] the implementation of the objects of the Convention,' and `to use the most expeditious procedures available';

Whereas the judicial authority of Brazil has failed to comply with its obligations under article 11 of the Hague Convention to expeditiously order the return of Sean to the United States;

Whereas, the United States and Brazil , through the Hague Convention, have expressed the firm conviction that `the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody';

Whereas, furthermore, the United States and Brazil have expressed their desire, through the Hague Convention, `to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence';

Whereas the U.S. State Department determined in its 2008 Compliance Report to Congress for the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as required under Public Law 105-277, section 2803 (the `Hague Convention Compliance Report'), that Brazil `continued to demonstrate patterns of noncompliance with the Convention in its judicial performance';

Whereas it is reported that there are nearly 50 cases in which children who were habitual residents of the United States have been wrongfully abducted to Brazil and have not been returned to the United States as required under the Hague Convention; and

Whereas Sean is being deprived of his rightful opportunity to live and be raised by his biological father, Sean could suffer developmental and psychological consequences because of this unjust separation, and it is consistent with international law to be reunited with his father in New Jersey following the death of his mother: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That —

(1) the House of Representatives —

(A) calls on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States; and

(B) calls upon the Brazilian government to fulfill its obligation under international law to take all other appropriate measures to secure within its territory the implementation of the objects of the Hague Convention, and to use the most expeditious procedures available, pursuant to article 2 of the Convention, in the case of Sean Goldman as well as all other children from the United States whose rights are not being respected under the Convention; and

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should —

(A) make the determination, through the United States Department of State in its 2009 Hague Convention Compliance Report, that Brazil is a `Country Not Compliant with the Convention', given that Brazil failed in all three performance areas of central authority performance, judicial performance, and law enforcement performance for fiscal year 2008;

(B) review its diplomatic procedures and the operations available to United States citizens through its central authority under the Hague Convention to ensure that effective assistance is provided to Mr. Goldman and other United States citizens in obtaining the expeditious return of their children from Brazil and other countries that have entered into the reciprocal obligations with the United States under the Hague Convention; and

(C) take any and all other appropriate measures to ensure that Hague Convention partners return abducted children to the United States in compliance with the Hague Convention's provisions.

END

Source: The Library of Congress - Thomas Register

US Representative Urges Brazil to Return Abducted American Child

http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/10573/

Written by Stephen Wash
Wednesday, 18 February 2009

On February 4th, 2009, U.S. Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey state spoke before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs during its hearing on "US Policy Toward Latin America in 2009 and Beyond." The congressman made a statement condemning Brazil's weak record of enforcing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Smith brough to light the case of American David Goldman whose son, Sean Goldman, was abducted by his own mother to Brazil. The woman remarried in Brazil and soon after died. Even after her death the Brazilian Justice refuses to return the boy to his father who lives in the United States. Her comments are now a part of the official Congressional Record.

On the same day, Congressmen Smith introduced House Resolution 125, "Calling on the central authority of Brazil to immediately discharge all its duties under the Hague Convention by facilitating and supporting Federal judicial proceedings as a matter of extreme urgency to obtain the return of Sean Goldman to his father, David Goldman, for immediate return to the United States."

Additionally, this resolution describes all of the various failings of the Brazilian judiciary and law enforcement in the handling of this case, and calls upon the United States Government to declare that Brazil is a "Country Not Compliant with the Convention."

On February 5th, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez of NJ released an open letter to Brazilian President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The letter summarizes the case and urges President Lula to take action and return the child to the United States.

Additionally, it warns of the precedence that could be set if a strategy of delay and legal miring so that the child adapts to his abductors is permitted to become a basis for denying the return of any abducted child.

Congress's sudden involvement in this case was spurred by the national reaction to the NBC Dateline television special featuring David Goldman and his tragic story of the abduction of his son. On January 30th, nearly 5 million viewers tuned in to learn of this heartbreaking saga.

Their response was overwhelming, flooding websites and email bins, searching for more details and demanding action from both governments. Nearly 30,000 people signed the petition or joined the Facebook group to show their support for David's efforts to be reunited with his son.

Congressman Chris Smith and his wife were among those watching. The Smith's were moved by David's plea for help and his obvious love for his son. At his wife's urging, Congressman Smith immediately contacted his staff to inform them that he was going to get involved.

That very night, his staff contacted David Goldman and scheduled a meeting for the following Monday. At the meeting, the congressman presented David with an offer: he would do everything in his power to help David bring his son back home including accompanying David to Brazil for any future court proceedings.

The opportunity to honor that promise came quickly. David and Congressman Smith flew to Brazil together on February 5th, 2009 to meet with high level government officials and to attend a court ordered mediation hearing.

Together with U.S. Ambassador Clifford Sobel and David's Brazilian legal representatives, the pair met with Sean's Brazilian guardian and Judge . At this hearing, David was finally granted the right to visit his son for the first time in four and a half years. Other issues related to custody of the child were not determined.

The illegal behavior of one person and his success in manipulating the Brazilian justice system has brought international attention to the human rights record of an entire country. In addition to the Goldman case, there are nearly fifty other open cases of children abducted to Brazil from the United States alone.

Certainly this is not what President Lula wishes to deal with as he prepares to enter into negotiations with the new administration in the United States over critical issues such as free trade and biofuels.

Yet there is little doubt that unless he and Justice Minister Tarso Genro act to ensure that this case and others like it are handled at the federal or supreme court level and that judges are directed to follow the Hague Treaty, he will face public demonstrations as well as resistance from Washington during his upcoming visit to United States.