Page 5 of 5   Previous |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5

Trusting the word of the expert that, at least in theory, should be impartial, we can deduce that, at most, Sean has been living with his stepfather since January 2006. Bruna passed away in August 2008.

The discussion here, then, is about excluding a father from Sean’s life, the father who raised and educated him until he had the child taken from him against his will, a father who has been fighting for Sean desperately and tirelessly for almost 5 years, so we can leave the child in the care of the stepfather with whom Sean, at the time of the mother’s death, lived with for two and a half years?

Is this what it’s all about? As incredible and absurd as it seems, it is. This is what it’s all about. Joao Paulo and the maternal family would have us believe this is a battle between the US and Brazil.

But that’s not true, it’s much simpler.

It’s a matter of a child who was taken from his father against his will. It’s about a father who did all he could, who faced countless difficulties, like distance, language and culture, to have his son back with him. And then, after Bruna’s death, he must have Sean back with him, regardless of everything he’s been through.

Joao Paulo says the government is out to get him. He says the AGU, funded by taxpayers, is out to get him. A certain Senator demanded, in a Senate tribunal, that the Executive branch must stay away from the case. The Secretariat of Human Rights will be called to provide explanations, all due to the lack of information.

There is an international convention about this issue. The Brazilian government independently assumed, by the President and approved by the House of Representatives, the international responsibility to promote the repatriation of children in these conditions. It’s up to the government to comply with their obligations. It’s up to the government to request the repatriation of the minor, and the legitimacy to do so has been confirmed not only by the Federal Court of Rio, but also the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia.

And whether the Convention is applicable or not will be decided on a case-by case basis by the Judiciary. If Sean is to be repatriated or not, the Judiciary will decide.

Mr. Joao Paulo knows very well nobody is out to get him. He knows well that today, the AGU sponsors more than 40 cases which seek the repatriation of minors, protected under the Hague Convention, to many countries. And he knows this well because he is working on at least one of these cases.

Until very recently, Mr. Joao Paulo was working on the repatriation of a minor proposed by the AGU, in custody of a Brazilian mother and resident of Rio de Janeiro. He was representing the foreign father. He earnestly argued the accuracy and ease of the Executive branch’s involvement in the case, as well as the enforcement of the Hague Convention.

There’s no pursuit of Joao Paulo Lins e Silva. The Executive is acting in compliance with an international duty freely and independently recognized by the Federative Republic of Brazil, and under the protection of the principle of impersonality.

It’s the right of the Executive to request repatriation when it comes to the child of Mr. Joao Paulo’s foreign client, and it’s also the right of the Executive to request the repatriation of the son of Mr. Joao Paulo’s wife. And Mr. Joao Paulo has the right to defend himself. And it’s up to the judiciary to say who’s right.

Let’s not lose focus. The ones who intend to keep Sean in Brazil are trying to divert attention, taking the spotlight off what really matters, what’s really relevant. To solve this question, one must only investigate whether the removal of this child to Brazil was lawful or illegal, from the point of view of New Jersey legislation, where the child resided.

If the child was taken illegally from the United States, then all allegations formulated by the Brazilian family will be investigated in the United States, the only country according to the Hague Convention, that has jurisdiction in the case.

Now that the facts have been restored, and focusing on the real issue, I request this council, always respectfully, to adopt the measures deemed appropriate to the case.

Cordially,

Ricardo Zamariola Junior
OAB/SP nº 224.324

Page 5 of 5   Previous |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5

Top of page