DAVID GOLDMAN & SON: WHATAYATHINK ?

You could try. It seems you had a career guessing what the law was in the USA.

It is a standard in international law to leave the child where it was..this is based on a tendency in domestic law to leave children where they are...everything else being equal. This happens all the time and I have been following several cases involving different countries. The easiest way for the father, if there is no extradition with Brazil for this level of crime, is to kidnap the boy.

The boys wishes are not of primary concern because we do not know if the boy was coerced in any way.

It seems unlikely that the Brazilian courts
r judging this by "international law".




By that reasoning, no one 's testimony shoud be taken because
he might be coerced in any way.





David

Family Courts place themselves in the position of acting in the best interest of the children as the adults can look after themselves.
There are many different areas where countries have agreements on law. I have called this international law for want of a better term. We recognise each others births, marriages, divorces, deaths and custody issues from within that soveriegn country. This means a local court would settle a foriegn custody issue based on the findings of the other country where ever possible. Most countries would recognise a natural parents rights regardless of the child's opinion until the child is about 14-16, when they MAY take the child's wishes into consideration.
It would be interesting to know if the father allowed the boy to be adopted by his mother's Brazilian husband. They may simply have filed for adoption based on being unable to find the natural father, which in a lot of countries simply involves a bribe. This would then be a conflict between the father and the state of Brazil as adoption is reversed in very few instances anywhere.
There is also the matter of citizenship. The boy may have Brazilian citizenship and have revoked US citizenship. In which case, countries are loath to interfere in another countries issues.
Were they divorced in the US or Brazil or legally in both ? What citizenship does the boy have ? Was the father asked to adpot the boy out and did he agree and if he didnt how did he effect his disagreement ? Did the father make any effort to get the boy back before this ? Did the father travel to Brazil to see the boy at anytime ? Did the father make any representation to Brazilian courts to enforce his natural rights ?
Parents coerce children all the time and most family courts will not look at a child's testamony to avoid the child being placed under duress.

If you had read the article you would know that she got the divorce in Brazil. The U.S. courts found in favour of David Goldman. It doesn't indicate of the Brazilian husband adopted. It does indicate that he is also not claiming custody, he is wanting David Goldman's name take from the birth certificate. Unless the boy later received Brazilian citizenship, he is American. The father visited the boy after the mother's death. All of this information is available on the internet for those who wish to seek facts rather than speculate..

Please note the basis of this thread,
which I reproduce below for your convenient reference:

" . . . What is the right thing to do ?
At first, my thawts were that the Brazilian interloper
is nuts n has no standing to do anything with Sean
and David Goldman 's wishes shoud be granted, . . . but, on reflection,
and re-consideration, inasmuch as Sean is able to speak for himself,
Sean shoud live wherever he wants.

He is not his dad 's property. He is not a slave because of age.
The judicial decision shoud be fully libertarian.
(I have no idea what the law of Brazil is.)
I 've heard that the Brazilian interloper is a wealthy lawyer.
It coud be possible that maybe Sean will get a better life
in more comfortable surroundings there than here.
I 'm not sure how financially well off David Goldman is, relative to Sean 's Brazilian host.

ANYWAY, the decision of who 's guest he will be rightfully belongs to Sean himself.

My thinking in this is consistent with the infamous case of Elian Gonzalez,
who was sent to live forever in communist slavery, because of his age. In that case,
I also advocated that Elian live wherever he chose, until he decided to migrate.

Children r no one 's property.
Thay have no duty to hang around with their parents if thay don t wanna. . . ."


In other words, we inquire to know Ionus' opinion
and the basis thereof, rather than a recapitulation of the status quo.

We hold the opinion of Ionus in much higher esteem
than that of the Brazilian court.





David

If I had bothered to find the article I would have read it. Usually such posts are accompanied by a link. I assumed there was a good reason for not having a link. I am thrifty with my time.

I did not speculate. I asked questions. For the rest of us, there is a difference.

My thought is that if a link is provided I will read it before posting. If a link is not posted, I will research it before I make my first post. Or, shortly thereafter.

Even though I consider my time as valuable, I would rather have some basis for my posts rather than waste time just asking questions.

I do, however, find it curious that you consider yourself thrifty when you post and quote almost nonstop on another thread to the point that it is doubtful that anybody is wasting their time reading them. But, I digress.

And even now you havent bothered to provide a link. Are you always this selfish with knowledge ? And the relevance of another thread is...?

The morality is difficult to discern. The boy has changed countries, presumably learnt a new language, had his mother die...I would be reluctant to move him as he is with someone who is also grieving. To reverse the process he has come through by moving him back I think is unwarranted. His opinion matters little as their are 3 responses to stress...fight, flight, or freeze. The young are more inclined to freeze and may do so in a situation that is not in their best interest.
Legally, he may be in a different position to what morality would suggest is best for him.

The link is the responsiblity of the thread author. Not mine.

The relevence only has to do with your statement of you being thrifty with your time but you waste a lot of it there.

Correct. And David would have very good reasons for not posting a link. I trust him to give enough information. The legal part of my training wanted to know more legality, as in this day and age morality has very little to do with events. The next post, I did put those urges aside and address the issue David wanted addressed. If I have erred, David will tell me.

Where I am thrifty or waste my time is my business. Mind you own.

There are some serious logical flaws in your argument David..

Let's assume a child can decide where and with whom he wants to live even if it isn't a parent.
Now, let's assume a child molester tells a child they will give them all the candy they want if that child will live with them.
Do you think the child should still be able to live wherever he wants?

Ever the diplomat.

In my experience, people are diplomatic here for one post, if that. When you do not fall down and cry out : yes! you are right ! I was so wrong ! I am not worth your spittle, oh mighty one ! Then they get abusive. David is diplomatic, which is why I care not to insult him. There are others who seem to be genuine people with their ego in check. I also take care not to offend them. But as soon as someone attacks me personally, the gloves come off.

I've noticed that children do that a lot too.

Clever children.

I think your point is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe you don't have children, so you don't know what it would be like to have a child you adore be ripped from you so callously, but as a parent I can tell you that it is the stuff that breaks people's hearts and destroys them emotionally. Sean is not his property - he is his child, and as a father he is entitled to have his child with him. That you would let a now brainwashed nine year old decide where he wants to live is just completely asinine....he has been held "captive" (so to speak) by his stepfather and his powerful connected family, and I can assure you that they've done whatever they can to make sure that the boy has heard only negative things about his father, as well as making him fearful of losing the life he has no known for five years. I feel for the child.... but if he had not been kidnapped and basically held hostage all this time there would be no discussion. Telling someone (David) that he should give up his parental rights to kidnappers after fighting all these years is just unbelievably cold. Walk in his shoes first, then tell me that you'd let your nine year old decide for himself. And to the person who has decided to dislike David Goldman because he's too good-looking and/or intense....what bs. Grow up. You'd be intense, too, if you had faced what he has all this time....I think he's been remarkably calm in all his interviews given what he's been put through. As far as his looks...sheesh...jealous, much?

He's a NINE year old. He's a child. He's a minor. His parents are his guardians. His father is the one who should decide where he lives, unless he gave up his parental rights and allowed the child to be adopted by step-dad.

Put all the emotion aside (just lost his mom, has family and friends there, etc etc), and how would you answer? His father has the moral right to have his son back. Why should he be denied his child?

Yes, the other factors/questions do enter into it somewhat - his previous contact, his child support (if any), etc., but just to show intent. I mean, all else being equal, if he didn't give a hang about his kid all this time, then I think he's basically abrogated his parental rights... but given that we're told there were visits (and maybe phone calls, etc), then he's maintained an interest in his child.

The child is too young to make this decision for himself. He hasn't got the reasoning ability or life experience to make a decision this big.

I expected that, clearly remembering the misadventure with Elian Gonzalez,
who was cast into lifelong communist slavery, to please his commie dad,
by people who share your anti-freedom point of vu.
Elian has the rest of his life to thank u for his slavery.



I don't have children. I believe that u r 100% right about the heartbreak
to which u have referred, but that does not undercut nor revoke the natural rights
of Sean, regardless of his age; its HIS life.
Years ago, I was obsessively in love with a girl named Joyce
but my love did not and does not give me any right to possess her.
Even if Sean acknowledges his dad's love,
that woud not put Sean under a duty of where to live.

Indeed, during custody arguments in Court,
if during testimony a parent alleges love,
that does not put the judge under any duty
to award custody, based only upon emotion.


Those were my first thoughts too, nyaz, reflexively, but I pondered & deliberated
in contemplation of what the person himself desires.

In the end, I don 't see that Sean 's natural right
to live where he wants is in any way subverted.
His dad did not INHERIT him from his mom.
As u have already conceded: human beings cannot be property.

It is my thinking that (for instance) if a kid of his age
chooses to take a walk and to take up residence
elsewhere, under more comfortable circumstances
than with his dad, then he has that natural freedom
because (unlike the family dog or horse) he is not property.
Maybe his stepfather is wealthier and (possibly) has given
Sean a richer lifestyle than woud have been the case.




Now, u have insulted Sean 's mind, upon the basis of his age.
If he were able to read your words, presumably: he 'd take offense
at your insolence. I don 't know, but I suspect, that your demonstrated contempt
for his mind woud not have been expressed, as long as he AGREED WITH U.


That 's plausible.




U think his mother kidnapped him ?



It is not my position that kidnappers have any rights.
It IS my position that Sean is rightfully autonomous,
as to where he lives, as long as he is welcome.

If anyone (regardless of age) has multiple invitations of hospitality,
then he must choose which he will accept.
That is not a matter of granting "rights" to kidnappers.






That 's corrupt; u recommend that I choose based on my own happiness.
The natural rights of the 9 year old boy are not affected by MY emotions.
Let 's try it this way:
u imply that the 9 year old has no right to decide where to live
if his dad loves him intensely; if he has a brother whose personality his dad dislikes
then HE acquires a new right to self determination,
but his brother does not have that right because his dad loves him? I don't think so.
Each of us is born with a natural right
to personal freedom n autonomy, even up to and including suicide.
Every person has the natural right to end his life at a time of his choice.





I 'd be better off if I looked half as good as he does (or almost anyone else).