Grandparent Visitation Rights New Issue in Sean Goldman Case

[M.Capestro]

Grandparent Visitation Rights New Issue in Sean Goldman Case
http://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/blog/newjersey-child-parenting-issues/1258/
Posted on July 13, 2012 by Sam
 
Sean Goldman, the little boy brought back from Brazil after a hard-won child custody battle by his father David Goldman in 2009, is back in the news, and at the center of a new custody fight, this time involving his Brazilian grandmother.
 
According to a new ruling from a state appeals court, Sean’s grandmother should have the chance to argue in court for visitation rights with her grandson, overturning a lower court’s previous decision to deny any custody claims. As NECN reports, the court said in a decision made public this week that Silvana Bianchi Ribeiro, the 12-year old boy’s maternal grandmother, is allowed to pursue her claim that terminating her relationship with her grandson would harm him. The grandmother, who still lives in Brazil, wants a formal visitation plan put in place.
 
The three-judge appellate panel said the lower-court judge did not fully consider whether visitation with his grandmother is in Sean’s best interest. The panel also urged Sean’s grandmother and his father to settle through mediation. However, the court did not grant Ribeiro’s request for interim visitation with Sean, who now lives with his father in Tinton Falls.
 
The case first reached the New Jersey courts after David Goldman refused visitation for Ribeiro unless she agreed to end all litigation in Brazil seeking Sean’s return. The appellate panel criticized Goldman’s demand as “unduly onerous.”
 
Does Ribeiro have a strong claim for visitation? If you recall the headline-making custody case, Sean Goldman was brought to Brazil by his mother, who remarried and then died in childbirth with her second child. Sean was raised by his Brazilian grandparents until his father was able to regain custody, with the help of New Jersey lawmakers and American diplomats in Brazil willing to intervene on his behalf.
 
According to family law statute N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, grandparents residing in the state have the right to seek an order for visitation rights with their grandchildren. However, in filing an application with the court to establish this visitation, the burden falls upon the grandparent to prove that visitation is in the best interests of the child. The statute lists eight factors for the court to consider in reaching its decision:
1. The relationship between the child and the applicant;
2. The relationship between each of the child’s parents or the person with whom the child is residing and the applicant;
3. The time which has elapsed since the child last had contact with the applicant;
4. The effect that such visitation will have on the relationship between the child and the child’s parents or the person with whom the child is residing;
5. If the parents are divorced or separated, the time sharing arrangement which exists between the parents with regard to the child;
6. The good faith of the applicant in filing the application;
7. Any history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect by the applicant; and
8. Any other factor relevant to the best interests of the child.
 
And there’s one last issue the courts must take into consideration. In 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003). In addition to the above, the court now holds that a grandparent must prove that denial of visitation with their grandchild is detrimental to the child.
 

[todez]

#7 should give her no chance in hell to actually get a visitation.  And they really should add the fact that she was involved in what the Brazilian judges saw fit to call a kidnapping, two times!  There is more than enough proof to show how she manipulated this boy and David, and abused Sean through her lies to him, and continues to throw out morsels that destablize Sean's relationship with David, all in attempts for her to maintain some kind of control over Sean. 
I hope the judge orders psychological tests and then throws her out on her duff, which is incredibly less than what she deserves!  May then can try her for accessory to kidnapping which would be real justice!

[sue]

She's really something...I really can't wait for it to be over with and if I feel this way I'm sure David is just sick of it.  She'll get what's coming to her, I wouldn't want to be the one in front of that Judge!

[lovellboys]

And there’s one last issue the courts must take into consideration. In 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003). In addition to the above, the court now holds that a grandparent must prove that denial of visitation with their grandchild is detrimental to the child.

Yeah - like that could happen. 

[rduffiel]

I am so sick of her.  Will she ever let David and Sean live in peace?

[alexeimichailowsky]

Silvana?
Never. As long as she lives, her reason of living will be taking Sean from David. And she counts on many of her "influent" Brazilian friends.
I still wonder why in the world a NJ court gave her a favorable decision...

[sara]

Rumor has it Silvana will meet with Sean at the end of the month.

Supposedly David is being legally strong armed into giving up his parental rights to the benefit of a documented child abductor/abuser.   


Does anyone have any additional information?  Exactly where/when will this happen?

[lovellboys]

I haven't heard anything about it, though I highly doubt there is any chance of him losing his parental rights.  We are talking occassional visitation at the most, not any sort of joint custody.  Sean has been back long enough and will be old enough next year to voice his concerns if he wants to.  Though I personally heard enough in his NBC interview 

[M.Capestro]

If David does not agree with this decision and the court is telling him that he has no choice but to present Sean, that is a loss of his parental rights.
 
David's not being protected, he's being forced to compromise what he believes to be right and best for his child. Sean's not being protected, he's not being asked if he's ready or wanting to see this person who lied to him for years, emotionally abused him for years and deprived him contact with his only living parent, he's being told that he must see her. How can the courts be protecting this woman's rights and throwing David's and Sean's out the window?
 
Well done, NJ Family Courts. Well done, victimizing the victims. Justice denied once again...only this time in our own freaking backyard!!

[ANALE]

This is really OUTRAGEOUS!  Our own courts are rewarding this witch.  What about the rights of an American father and his child?  I am really ticked off by this.  It seems like the only one who had a grasp on this was Judge Guadagno.

[lovellboys]

Has something changed?  The last I heard, the appeals court didn't demand visitation, they just allowed that 'she' could keep fighting.  I agree M. Capestro that David should have full and final say, and anything contrary is a violation of his and Sean's rights.    I should have stated that there is no chance of him losing custody.  Although if the courts keep up with these stupid rulings....who knows.

[AnotherDad]

Does anybody know if there's a ruling that demanded David allow Cruella to have a visit w/Sean?

[todez]

God knows Cruella would have gotten her media cronies to get it in their papers, but I haven't seen anything at all about any ruling.

[sue]

God knows Cruella would have gotten her media cronies to get it in their papers, but I haven't seen anything at all about any ruling.

I think she just won an appeal to be able to go back to court and ask for visitation, but I don't know.

[SageDad]

It's one thing when the parents themselves can't agree on what's best for a child and go to the court to have the conflict resolved, but when other parties, including police, social workers, hospitals and teachers start to intervene and seek to supersede the authority of parents I think we have gone too far, especially when there is no immediate risk to the child (and in this case the grandmother is a total sociopath and is, herself, the risk.)

I've believed for a long time that the solution to this sort of family court abuse is to support a Constitutional amendment for parental rights.


The rights of fit parents to decide what is best for their children have been under siege for decades.  Parents are arrested for "child abuse" for letting their kids play outside.  Children are placed in foster homes for years on end because they rode their bike without a helmet and kids are taken away from their parents because the parents criticized the government.


There is a strong, growing and bipartisan effort to do exactly that and you get more information here:


http://www.parentalrights.org/