Comment by Ferreira Gullar, Brazilian poet

[chopchop]

This case is not solved only because people from the first two items have a lot of influence in Brazilian politics and media. Even with that they don't have public opinion on their side - even in O Globo blogs you can count their supporters with one hand.

 
This may be true, but I would argue that corruption/influence is the main reason David's case has dragged on this far. The law is in favor of David but if no judge has the courage to apply the law as designed then the Brazilian jurisprudence is giving tacit legitimacy to the custody claims of JPLS through pretense only. It seems clear to me that the strategy of JPLS et al is to delay the legal process by appeals and then make the argument that Sean is adapted to his environment and therefore it is not in his best interest to be returned to David. This argument/perspective is reasonable generically and has been codified by the Brazilian courts so far. The larger question is why has this case even progressed to a point where the defendant can even make this claim on behalf of Sean and in general for Brazilian family law?

Even if the majority of the Brazilian populace does not support the perspective of the Brazilian family, that still doesn't matter because the judiciary has supported their custody claim of Sean. In other words the strategy of JPLS et al has worked and continues to work in their favor. I know that what I am saying is obvious but the corruptive influences are the nexus of this case. The case should be about where the custody claims should be adjudicated. The case has been transformed into a case about "socio-affective" paternity, child welfare and the "local" interpretation of international law. What nonsense. It is ridiculous to reason that the judges that have decided this case thus far were ignorant or unable to comprehend the intent of the Hague Convention on custody issues. The only way to understand this case is if corruption and political influence are considered as the major influencing issues and that all of the subsequent arguments are present to give the illusion that there are some sound legal and legitimate child welfare issues at hand that make deciding the case impossible. I call BS where I see it and the handling of this case by the Brazilian courts is BS.

[elizrpoe]

This may be true, but I would argue that corruption/influence is the main reason David's case has dragged on this far. The law is in favor of David but if no judge has the courage to apply the law as designed then the Brazilian jurisprudence is giving tacit legitimacy to the custody claims of JPLS through pretense only. It seems clear to me that the strategy of JPLS et al is to delay the legal process by appeals and then make the argument that Sean is adapted to his environment and therefore it is not in his best interest to be returned to David. This argument/perspective is reasonable generically and has been codified by the Brazilian courts so far. The larger question is why has this case even progressed to a point where the defendant can even make this claim on behalf of Sean and in general for Brazilian family law?

Even if the majority of the Brazilian populace does not support the perspective of the Brazilian family, that still doesn't matter because the judiciary has supported their custody claim of Sean. In other words the strategy of JPLS et al has worked and continues to work in their favor. I know that what I am saying is obvious but the corruptive influences are the nexus of this case. The case should be about where the custody claims should be adjudicated. The case has been transformed into a case about "socio-affective" paternity, child welfare and the "local" interpretation of international law. What nonsense. It is ridiculous to reason that the judges that have decided this case thus far were ignorant or unable to comprehend the intent of the Hague Convention on custody issues. The only way to understand this case is if corruption and political influence are considered as the major influencing issues and that all of the subsequent arguments are present to give the illusion that there are some sound legal and legitimate child welfare issues at hand that make deciding the case impossible. I call BS where I see it and the handling of this case by the Brazilian courts is BS.

Couldn't agree with you more

[André Felipe]

It seems clear to me that the strategy of JPLS et al is to delay the legal process by appeals and then make the argument that Sean is adapted to his environment and therefore it is not in his best interest to be returned to David. This argument/perspective is reasonable generically and has been codified by the Brazilian courts so far.

at least we know we have a great "ally" that doesn´t agree with that, the Supreme Court Minister Alberto Menezes Direito, but I hope we won´t need to go to STF to have Sean back to US.