Brazil STJ Ruling Expected -- **Hearing now scheduled for 3pm Monday, 5/24**

[M.Capestro]

As many of you know, we're expecting a decision on the Larivee case today from Brazil's Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). Please post any news you find here. Below are the official sites of the STJ:

STJ Website: http://www.stj.jus.br
STJ on Twitter: http://twitter.com/STJNoticias (@STJNoticias)

Good luck today, Francois! You and your son are in our thoughts and prayers!

[pam.in.ny]

The suspense is killing me. I checked the site but can't read it. LOL. Typed in
Larivee into the search window and nothing found. Ohhhhh I so hope no news
is good news. It was a tough day concentrating at work today. <SIGH>

[M.Capestro]

This is the page I'm watching on the STJ site -- http://www.stj.jus.br/portal_stj/publicacao/engine.wsp?tmp.area=397

The last time they posted was approximately 2:30p local time (remember they're an hour ahead of me - US Eastern).

If you all remember, it was never until late in the day that the rulings came out for David...some times as late as 6:30p my local time.

[M.Capestro]

I'm going to have to leave soon, but for those site watching, the STJ site seems to post before the Twitter account does. They just posted an update on a different case, so they may be starting the process of posting this afternoon's decisions.

[phillyone]

I'm unable to find anything either. or at least I don't understand either. :biggrin

[M.Capestro]

Just posted to STJ "Mais Noticias" site: http://www.stj.jus.br/portal_stj/publicacao/engine.wsp?tmp.area=398&tmp.texto=97348

Conciliation hearing will attempt to define the future of Canadian children brought to Brazil in default of the father
21/05/2010 - 8:33 a.m.
ONGOING

The judge summoned Paulo Furtado performs on next Monday (24), 15h, conciliation hearing between the parties to try to define the future of a Canadian child of seven years of age brought to Brazil by his mother without the father's consent. The appeal, under consideration at the Third Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), intends to change the decision on the case of search and seizure action filed by the Union, aiming to deliver the child to the responsible authority in Canada, based on the Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Decree 3.413/2000).

According to information of the case, the mother brought her son to Brazil in default of the father and finally settled in Rio de Janeiro. The mother continued relationship with Canadian citizen, where he resided. After separation of the couple, the child lived with her mother and has not regulated the spouses before the Canadian justice issues relating to the custody of the child.

In 2004, the mother, possession of authorization from the father of the child to travel only to the United States, changed the route and flew to Brazil where he lives, since then, with his son. From this fact, the father joined the Canadian Justice based in the Hague Convention and obtained custody of the child.

In Brazil, the Union filed a lawsuit search and seizure of the child - which was upheld - and determines the child's return to Canada and also prohibited the withdrawal of the smallest territorial limits of the Judicial Section of Rio de Janeiro, the mother, without prior judicial authorization, to the res judicata of the process.

Bitter, the defense of the child's mother appealed to the Federal Regional Court of the Region 2 (TRF2), which upheld the verdict, denying dismiss the appeal. According to the decision of TRF2, one of the objectives of the Convention on Hijacking "is curbing the illegal movement of children and allow for quick return to their country of habitual residence before the abduction, where it should be appreciated the merits of custody."

[M.Capestro]

The word is that the "other side" filed a petition to postpone. The STJ accepted the petition. Monday's hearing will be a "conciliatory hearing."

Does calling it a "conciliatory hearing" mean they won't be discussing what they should have been discussing today...a ruling on sending Francois' son home? Or is it just the STJ's way of appeasing the opposing party ("Sure, we'll grant you a postponement. You now have until Monday.") and still getting the business at hand done...sending Francois' son home?!?!

[LukieD]

Does calling it a "conciliatory hearing" mean they won't be discussing what they should have been discussing today...a ruling on sending Francois' son home? Or is it just the STJ's way of appeasing the opposing party ("Sure, we'll grant you a postponement. You now have until Monday.") and still getting the business at hand done...sending Francois' son home?!?!

I don't know but I don't like the sound of it. As if waiting 2.5 years for this appelate court to rule is not long enough, why in the world would they be granting requests from the abductor for more time to "work things out"? What changes between today and Monday for goodness sake except they have a few more days to keep Lucas from his father? And now Francois has to spend the weekend in Brasilia, run up more travel expenses, and miss more work next week? I sure hope the Canadian Embassy staff is taking good care of him. That's the least they can do.

The term "reconciliation hearing" reminds me of what David had to endure with that same STJ court in Feb 2009 (remember Judge Salamao?) when they dragged him down there to face down Sean's abductors in a court room to see if they could work out some sort of agreement.

Francois, if you're checking in, you have our full support and let us know if there's anything we can do to help.

[phillyone]

Sounds to me the Brazilian Courts are doing to Francois what they did to David...DELAY TACTICS!

It makes me mad! :madgo :madgo

[M.Capestro]

The term "reconciliation hearing" reminds me of what David had to endure with that same STJ court in Feb 2009 (remember Judge Salamao?) when they dragged him down there to face down Sean's abductors in a court room to see if they could work out some sort of agreement.

My "Behind-the-Scenes Source" -- just going to start referring to him/her as "Cyrano" -- says it could be something along this same line, indicating that the abductor's plan may be to volunteer return to try and avoid other conditions under the Hague, including financial liability.

I have mixed emotions about this. (1) Hooray, let's get the boy home!  :biggrin (2) This person needs to be held accountable!!  :madgo

Francois, if you're checking in, you have our full support and let us know if there's anything we can do to help.

 :yeahthat

[Lexi]

I don't like the sound of it either and I also don't like the deafening silence from the Cdn. Govt. thus far.

Any thoughts about whether we should contact the Bloc Quebecois MP, Bernard Bigras today (and the other politicians who cited support for him in that parliamentary debate) or should we see what pans out on Monday?

His wife's ex-husband kidnapped their son to Egypt (many years back now) and he apparently introduced a motion in parliament in response to that so he is well acquainted with ICA.

Like I said, I don't want to do anything that would upset matters but the word concialiation under these circumstances just has a weaselly ring to it.

I have to get going soon but will check back later.

[LukieD]

My "Behind-the-Scenes Source" -- just going to start referring to him/her as "Cyrano" -- says it could be something along this same line, indicating that the abductor's plan may be to volunteer return to try and avoid other conditions under the Hague, including financial liability.

I'd say it's a pretty sure bet the abductors see the writing on the wall and want to see what they can salvage out of this situation. Sound familiar? It's like the STJ court is now saying "ok, we sat on this case for 2.5 years, but we really don't want this to get nasty and actually have to return a child by law enforcement means, so let's set up a hearing to see if the parties can work out an agreement." What a GREAT idea, five years after the abduction!

They're probably talking about negotiating a voluntary return. Shouldn't that have happened years ago? Send the kid home already. You've let these people violate this father and son's human rights long enough. Francois should stand his ground, firmly, like David did when faced with this situation and let the Brazilians know any discussion can only begin after Lucas is sent home to Canada -- immediately.

[JonathanR]

Sounds like another ring-around-the-rosie. If Brazil starts a new pattern of continually granting these stays/delays, it will only add further proof to the idea of "they just don't get it" and that Sean's return ultimately boiled down to the blocked trade deal. 

[phillyone]

I just want to know

Is this abductor in anyway shape or form associated with the Lins e Silva Clan?
How rich and influential is she that she can manipulate the Justice system just like Silvana did?

[tenorplus]

Sounds like another ring-around-the-rosie. If Brazil starts a new pattern of continually granting these stays/delays, it will only add further proof to the idea of "they just don't get it" and that Sean's return ultimately boiled down to the blocked trade deal. 

AGREE! Maybe a more permanent trade sanction (or at least hoding some of the funds Brazil gets from the USA) is a way to keep their "feet on the fire" of reality and return these abducted children to their rightful parent!!!