It's that nine-year-old boy, Sean Goldman, who's living in Rio with his stepfather and his mother's family. His dead mother. I'm not sure whether this current event has caught the attention of others as much as it has ours here at my household. (For those of you who don't know, my husband is Brazilian and our younger daughter has dual citizenship.) If you don't know about the story, here's the latest on the story as reported by cnn.com.
I started thinking, what's my take on this? Do I go with the biological mother (who's now dead) and her family since I'm a biomom myself? I go with her because she's someone like me who braved the storm of being a single mother because her spouse was doing things she thought were bad for her child? Or do I take the side of the biodad, thinking that a biological parent should always have custody before a stepparent? But then it gets complicated, see, because I would want my husband, my oldest daughter's stepfather, to have some say-so in her life should (God-forbid) anything ever happen to me.
(Don't even tempt me for a second to go into the issues of international affairs between the US and Brazil because I will not go there.)
So. Lots of you out there have been a single mom. Or you're a biomom who's been remarried and have watched your spouse and your child have to navigate the treacherous waters of establishing their relationship. Or you're the stepparent to a child you care deeply for, and maybe your bio-counterpart isn't so happy to have you in the picture. I want to know what you think about this whole thing.
My deep hunch, from the beginning, is that this American father will regain sole physical and legal custody of his son, leave Brazil for the US immediately upon gaining that physical custody, and never travel south of the border again. So the kid loses the relationship he has with his now-deceased mother's family. And the stepfather will be left way out in the cold. Because legally...whether you're in the US or in Brazil or in China or wherever...stepparents don't have the right to step over the wishes of biological parents.
Think long and hard about it before you answer. As you can tell, I'm torn. If something happens to my ex-husband, I would never be obligated to explain my actions as a parent to anyone ever again. I could tell Grace's stepmother to kiss off and that would be the end of the story. The down side to this, of course, is that my ex-husband could legally do the same to Grace's stepfather in a similar circumstance. So I'm finding myself back to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I'm not sure how the Golden Rule applies in the case of Sean Goldman's parents.
As a last word, I'm going to check out the Brazilian news sources when I get a chance today. I'm curious to see how this whole story is being reported there. If I find out anything, I'll include more here. But until then, chew on this and give me your comments to chew on as well.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Wow. That's a tough one. While I do not disagree with dad, who has been left out in the cold, I have to say that removing a 9yo from the only home/family that he has ever known is unfair. The person in this scenario that is to blame is dead.
I can only say that I would never move away from my ex, but my ex loves and cares for our kids. I also think that if you move to another country, marry comeone from that country and have kids, then you are obligated to remain in that country if you would like to retain any custodial privilages.
While I won't blast dad for having a desire to get his son back, I think that the welfare of the child needs to be top priority. The outcome needs be directed towards maintaining a relationship between the child and all parties involved. It doesn't matter where you live, family is important...and unless there is a reason not to (abuse or neglect) then the adults need to work together to ensure that the child gets as much interaction as possible. Why would you deny your child the care and attention from people who love them?
My partner is terrified by the thought that something similar could happen to him. He also married a foreign national whose country of citizenship has not signed up to the Hague convention and puts the banana into banana republic.
But I think the problem here is that stuff can drag out in courts for years which really does give the side doing the 'taking' the upper hand in such battles. In this case a mother took her infant son home to turkey and has been there for almost 3 years.
I hadn't heard about this.
Happy blogoversary!
This story is indeed terrible. It all started here in this country. The mother lived here, married here and had the child here. She 'went to visit family' with the son and never returned. The husband has been fighting this for years. The stepfather colluded with the mother to keep the father from regaining custody. I actually saw a quote from the mother's mother stating that since the father had never paid child support he should not regain custody of the child. My exact reaction. . .wtf? Seriously? Your daughter kidnapped a child thereby removing him from his father and his home and the only country that he had ever known. That was years ago. If the mother and stepfather had shown any interest in acting within the law years ago, the 9 year old would not be in the situation he is in now. I'm also very interested in people's reactions to the story. So many women are concerned for 'the child.' When the situation is reversed in international kidnapping cases (ie. the father flees with the child to his home country) it's always assumed that it's in the best interest of the child to return to the mother regardless of how long they've been with their father's family. The displacement of the importance of father's in children's lives is so undervalued that it's disturbing.
I guess the point is moot now that Sean is home with his father. I would imagine that the woman who was kidnapped at 11 and impregnated by her abuctor and had 2 children, had a relationship with him. Her two children must have had a relationship with him but NO One suggests that since that house and those people who fed and clothed and took care of them should EVER see them again.
The boy was kidnapped, in a way that prevented the father from being involved in his life. The people who harbored him did not have his best interest. They admitted openly that they "hung up" on him when he called to talk to him. I heard a video, in which the child is crying and his dad is on the phone and he say's whats wrong, and the kid says I'm very sad cause you're not here. I guess that's why the mother decided not to let him talk to him again. I heard the brazil courts said the grandmother and step father were using a severe form of mental abuse. I wouldn't let them within an inch of my child
I wanted to follow up on the comments that Anonymous left, just because this commenter quotes something that has been said in the media over and over. They say that the biomom, by leaving the US surreptitiously with her child, committed an act of kidnapping. Though it is possible that is a correct characterization of her actions, I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence that would support this conclusion. She did the same thing many women do when they decide to leave a partner -- they are quiet, pack up the kid's things, and they flee. I think that because her home happened to be outside the US, the media jumped to the conclusion that she went to Brazil solely to evade the law.
As someone in a multi-national family, I don't think of things along the lines of national boundaries unless something forces me to. My husband's hometown is in another country, 5000 miles away from where we are, but my hometown is almost 2000 miles away too. In order to think about this situation clearly, you have to stop thinking of it being between two different countries.
The other part of this story that is never told is why this woman left. There must have been something pretty awry in the relationship for her to flee the country with her kid, never to return to her current home again. It may be that she plotted in an evil way to whisk her child away for no other reason than that she hated her husband and wanted to hurt him very, very badly. But I have a feeling that, like most divorce stories, both parties had racked up some serious offenses against the other. Serious terms like "kidnapping" get thrown around a lot during custody cases. But I think they usually used as a way to hurt ex-partners and get one's own way. Since we don't know the story behind the separation and divorce, I don't believe it is right to conclude that this woman is guilty of kidnapping.
Post a Comment