Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Child abducted was sent back to Canada by LeS!  (Read 1543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mom25

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1290
Child abducted was sent back to Canada by LeS!
« on: March 01, 2009, 12:01:37 AM »
I am not sure if this was posted here - I am copying this message from the Main Blog (marciadavis)...

A guy just posted on o globo that he found out that back in 2004 Joao Paulo was hired by a canadian man whom had his child abducted and taken to Brasil. The case was very similar to Bruna’s case! And guess what? The boy was sent back to Canada and reunited with his father!!! Read on: http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/testetexto/anexo/decisao1.pdf

AMAZING...
Mom25 (She of Many Names)
A união faz a força

Offline joey2051

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: Child abducted was sent back to Canada by LeS!
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2009, 12:29:20 AM »
wow.....they do say Hauge conention a lot in their, so much for not knowing about it.....their was one part, if im reading correct, it states their is only one reason to why they shouldn't follow the convention, that is if their is a situation of great gravity, that cannot be resovled through the courts.
-And I think the Judge is saying this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(or the silvia's)
 
Hmmm....don't see any situation in David's case,and that if their was,-couldn't be resolved through the U.S. court system, and if their was it would of been stated, of which it has not, therefore Bruna had never fulfilled that reason,
 
The defense to not return him to the father also seems to be alcholism, Bruna never had a reason to not return the child, and even though the defense of the mother stated alcholism, he still got his child back!

Offline joey2051

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
Re: Child abducted was sent back to Canada by LeS!
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2009, 12:39:45 AM »
It seems that the defendent-the abducting parent- ruined her case for herself by giving conflicting views; but still Bruna never gave any reasons of an "intolerable situation" of which the judge stated must be evident.
 
How can you not say their is some kind of an influence of power in David's case?
 
did the judge in David's case just completley ignore the convention?? wasn't David able to defend himself in the first custody case agaisnt Bruna? why wasn't this brought up