It looks like nothing has changed in Brazil since Sean returned. Here is part of the email that I received from the Office of Children's Issues today. My comments are interjected in red.
The Federal Court rejected your application for the following reasons:
· Both mother and children had double residence in Brazil and the United States
It is irrelevant whether the children acquire residence in Brazil during their abduction. What is important is where their habitual residence was at the time of the abduction.
· You went to Brazil and visited a school with the mother, a school both of you intended to enroll both children. Thus, you had presumably agreed to the transfer of residence of your children.
Yes, I visited a school because I am a teacher and was interested in seeing what a school in Brazil looked like. I NEVER intended to enroll my children. In fact, I presented evidence to the judge to the contrary. I showed not only that they were enrolled in school in the United States for the following school year, but also copies of round-trip plane tickets.
· You never effectively exercised custody of the children prior to the children’s change of residence as both minors lived in the company of their mother in the United States
What the hell does this mean? Is the judge saying that a father who is married to a child's mother AND lives not only with the mother, but also the children in the SAME residence is NOT excercising custody???
· After the separation, you did not provide any support to the children
This has nothing to do with the Hague Convention.
· The competent judicial authority in the United States did not recognize the illicit retention of the children and granted the custody to the mother while you were granted access rights
I entered as evidence a court ruling from the United States that showed exactly the opposite. The US court specifically stated that the children were illegally removed from the United States. Furthermore, the judge in Brazil did not distinguish between physical and legal custody. Granting primary custody to the mother does not mean that the father only has access rights. He has shared custody. I think this is a result of a difference in Brazilian and US law. Anyways, it doesn't matter. The Hague Convention applies as long as I was exercising any degree of custody.
· Your behavior after the transfer of residence demonstrated that you had agreed with the children’s permanent residence in Brazil
Again, what the hell does this mean?
· The psychological evaluation of your children attested that they are adapted to their new life and that a new change of residence could pose a risk to their psychological well being
This can only be used as a defense if more than one year passed between my request and the illegal retention. I filed my petition 2 months after they were retained.
· Both children demonstrated that they wish to remain with their mother
Both children also stated that they want to be with their father and the psychological reports indicate that they were harmed by the sudden removal from me.
I waited 3 1/2 years for this crap? If any of us thought that the system in Brazil had changed with David's ruling, we were all foolishly wrong.
