Sage Bermudez Abduction Case

[ananddad]

My lawyer is on his way back from court and I've just been informed that the office of DIF in Guanajuato (which is equivalent of Child and Family Services for the Mexican State of GTO) has filed a motion in my case expressing the inconstitutionality of returning my son to the US and their complete disagreement with the courts decision to do so and support of my wife's appeal to overturn the court's decision saying that small children can't be separated from their mother and basically validating every argument that my wife has made in her appeal. When a Mexican mother kidnaps a child to Mexico she finds support through all levels of government, law enforcement and social services. An American father going against that stands alone with what legal counsel and support he can afford to purchase (assuming he doesn't take the State Dept's advice that he doesn't really need a lawyer). In a way I respect Mexico for supporting it's citizens, even when they are dead wrong. I wish I lived in a country that did that. Once upon a time I believed that I did.

Sorry to hear about it. Were you and your lawyet expecting this kind of report from the evaluator? Clarify one thing for me: they filed the motion. When is the Court expected to rule on it? From your post, it doesn't sound like Court had endorsed the report. Is that correct?

[SageDad]

Sorry to hear about it. Were you and your lawyet expecting this kind of report from the evaluator? Clarify one thing for me: they filed the motion. When is the Court expected to rule on it? From your post, it doesn't sound like Court had endorsed the report. Is that correct?

No, actually the court may very well remove all the manifestations that DIF made in my case.  I just talked to my lawyer again who is now back home from traveling to court and it wasn't the State of GTO's DIF office that filed the response but rather the small city branch my wife lives in who responded.  The way an "amparo" (constitutional appeal) works is that third parties are given a chance to disagree and respond to the list of grievances made by the person who filed the appeal (in this case my wife). My wife listed DIF as a 3rd party and they have responded and basically just went down the list of  my wife's grievances saying they concurred with all of them which invalidates them as a 3rd party since they are not disagreeing with anything.  Even if their response is not explicitly removed though it doesn't really add anything to the case but it does illustrate the difficulty in winning these cases in Mexico.  All fathers fighting in Mexico (and some mothers) find that all local authorities and agencies are lined up against them when they go to try and get their children, and I mean actively against them -- without knowing any of the the history or being witnesses to anything.  This is in shárp contrast to the total lack of support provided by the State Dept to the parent that is trying to get their kids back.  The OCI pretends to be non-partial but their unwillingness to do anything actually actively helps the abductor who is guaranteed extensive support against the American petitioner who must stand alone.  I consider myself fortunate to at least have a good understanding of the Spanish language and the ability to pay my attorneys.  Lacking either one of those things would make an extremely difficult situation nearly impossible.

[ananddad]

No, actually the court may very well remove all the manifestations that DIF made in my case.......My wife listed DIF as a 3rd party and they have responded and basically just went down the list of my wife's grievances saying they concurred with all of them which invalidates them as a 3rd party since they are not disagreeing with anything. Even if their response is not explicitly removed though it doesn't really add anything to the case but it does illustrate the difficulty in winning these cases in Mexico. All fathers fighting in Mexico (and some mothers) find that all local authorities and agencies are lined up against them when they go to try and get their children, and I mean actively against them -- without knowing any of the the history or being witnesses to anything. This is in shárp contrast to the total lack of support provided by the State Dept to the parent that is trying to get their kids back. The OCI pretends to be non-partial but their unwillingness to do anything actually actively helps the abductor who is guaranteed extensive support against the American petitioner who must stand alone. I consider myself fortunate to at least have a good understanding of the Spanish language and the ability to pay my attorneys. Lacking either one of those things would make an extremely difficult situation nearly impossible.

Glad to hear this report won't have an adverse effect. Good that their endorsing all her grievances would invalidate their motion on grounds of it not really being unbiased. Hunting for a 3rd party that validates their absurd arguments/claims is the modus operandi for most criminals anyway.
 

This is in shárp contrast to the total lack of support provided by the State Dept to the parent that is trying to get their kids back. The OCI pretends to be non-partial but their unwillingness to do anything actually actively helps the abductor who is guaranteed extensive support against the American petitioner who must stand alone.

Don't get me started...I promised myself I won't bad mouth OCI/DoS this week so I can regain some lost sanity.

[sue]

My lawyer is on his way back from court and I've just been informed that the office of DIF in Guanajuato (which is equivalent of Child and Family Services for the Mexican State of GTO) has filed a motion in my case expressing the inconstitutionality of returning my son to the US and their complete disagreement with the courts decision to do so and support of my wife's appeal to overturn the court's decision saying that small children can't be separated from their mother and basically validating every argument that my wife has made in her appeal. When a Mexican mother kidnaps a child to Mexico she finds support through all levels of government, law enforcement and social services. An American father going against that stands alone with what legal counsel and support he can afford to purchase (assuming he doesn't take the State Dept's advice that he doesn't really need a lawyer). In a way I respect Mexico for supporting it's citizens, even when they are dead wrong. I wish I lived in a country that did that. Once upon a time I believed that I did.

How can they even get involved?  Your son is too young to be interviewed, so basically this is just somebody's opinion about how and where a child should grow up.  I would think somehow this could be thrown out.  Was it ordered by the court?

[SageDad]

How can they even get involved?  Your son is too young to be interviewed, so basically this is just somebody's opinion about how and where a child should grow up.  I would think somehow this could be thrown out.  Was it ordered by the court?

They usually do get involved during the family court proceedings and claim that children can't be separated from their mother, it's a grave risk of harm and so on.  Funny how they argue in favor of allowing international child abductions in the name of the children.  During the first hearing in my son's case they were all lined up to express their opinion that the Hague return should be denied.  Child and Family Services, the District Attorney/Prosecutor (Ministerio Publico), clerks of the court, family and friends of my wife... and all this before ever meeting or talking to me, seeing any evidence, being involved in or witnessing any part of my family's life.  It's less common that they file a brief during Amparo's as they did in Sage's case though.  Amparo's against judicial decisions are based on the facts of the case as they appear in the court docket from the family and appeals court (where DIF may have been involved) not on the opinion of child welfare agencies except when those agencies are going to argue based on the law which doesn't make sense either since they are social workers not lawyers.

It's really pretty sickening.  Although it got no press in the US there were a couple large international conferences on the Hague Convention and international child abduction in Mexico about a month ago.  Member's from the US Embassy and Mexican Central Authority as well as federal law enforcement heads, lawyers and judges got together to talk about international abduction alongside one of the heads of the federal child welfare agency (DIF).  They all sat down to wax poetic about the problems of international child abduction and the things that need to be done.  Of course it changed nothing.  The head of DIF can talk about the harm done to children by international abductions while all the individual employees go out saying children can't be separated from mothers and that fathers who use the Hague Convention are exercising a form of violence against the mothers and not even paying child support for their kidnapped children!!  The only real effect of these conferences is for the attendees to list them on their resumes claiming experience in "international law and human rights".  One of the judges on a panel at the conference denied a Hague return in one of my lawyers other cases (and had his decision overturned on appeal) and my lawyer heckled him with questions until he refused to answer more.

[ananddad]

One of the judges on a panel at the conference denied a Hague return in one of my lawyers other cases (and had his decision overturned on appeal) and my lawyer heckled him with questions until he refused to answer more.

That is funny. Bet you would have loved to be present at the conference to heckle the Judge yourself:D

[SageDad]

That is funny. Bet you would have loved to be present at the conference to heckle the Judge yourself:D

lol.. yeah.  

There's a reason the State Dept will never send any of its representatives to an event that is attended by LBP's.  They want to claim their working hard to support LBP's without having any of us call BS on their claims.  Every so often they have conferences on improving the Hague Convention and its compliance but State blocks parents from being able to attend or won't attend themselves.

What amazes me is that when a country as non-compliant as Mexico has an international conference on the Hague Convention attended by US diplomats along with representatives from several other Latin American nations (I'm unaware if Brazil was there) it doesn't make a single newspaper here in the US (it made several Mexican papers and my lawyer was aware of it).  The abduction of children to Mexico and their respective non-compliance with the HC is truly an issue that remains completely under the radar.

[sue]

When do you expect a ruling?

[SageDad]

When do you expect a ruling?

Possibly on the 23rd in one appeal and hopefully before December in the other.  Once December comes they will basically shut down for the holidays.

[Lexi]

No, actually the court may very well remove all the manifestations that DIF made in my case. I just talked to my lawyer again who is now back home from traveling to court and it wasn't the State of GTO's DIF office that filed the response but rather the small city branch my wife lives in who responded. The way an "amparo" (constitutional appeal) works is that third parties are given a chance to disagree and respond to the list of grievances made by the person who filed the appeal (in this case my wife). My wife listed DIF as a 3rd party and they have responded and basically just went down the list of my wife's grievances saying they concurred with all of them which invalidates them as a 3rd party since they are not disagreeing with anything. Even if their response is not explicitly removed though it doesn't really add anything to the case but it does illustrate the difficulty in winning these cases in Mexico. All fathers fighting in Mexico (and some mothers) find that all local authorities and agencies are lined up against them when they go to try and get their children, and I mean actively against them -- without knowing any of the the history or being witnesses to anything. This is in shárp contrast to the total lack of support provided by the State Dept to the parent that is trying to get their kids back. The OCI pretends to be non-partial but their unwillingness to do anything actually actively helps the abductor who is guaranteed extensive support against the American petitioner who must stand alone. I consider myself fortunate to at least have a good understanding of the Spanish language and the ability to pay my attorneys. Lacking either one of those things would make an extremely difficult situation nearly impossible.

Carlos:
Is the bias against fathers because of Mexico being a more traditional country (i.e. cultural differences)? I'm asking because I'm inclined to think that factors in with Brazil and Japan as well. If so, then why the bias against LBP mothers or is there an anti-American component to it too (like there probably is with the other two countries)?
 
Also, I was wondering if any LBPs that you know of have tried bringing the OCI's lack of support to the media's attention or would most LBPs be concerned about antagonizing them? And in asking, I realize there are hurdles to generating media attention for these issues.

[ananddad]

I am sure Carlos will repond. Here are my 2 cents....
 

Is the bias against fathers because of Mexico being a more traditional country (i.e. cultural differences)? I'm asking because I'm inclined to think that factors in with Brazil and Japan as well.

Everytime I say this, I get shouted down...but I will say it again. Bias against fathers is pretty much universal. A father is guilty until he can prove his innocence. I faced it during my own dissolution process. Talk to any man who went through divorce proceedings in US and they will say the same thing. This bias is not limited to Courts. Public, media and Law enforcement have the same bias. Though I am not certain it is still the case, I think Middle East is the one exception where father is considered to be the guardian of children and hence favoured in child custody matters.
 

Carlos:
If so, then why the bias against LBP mothers or is there an anti-American component to it too (like there probably is with the other two countries)?

This can't be ruled out. A lot of third world countries like to thumb their noses at US. Given how little the US Govt (DoS and OCI) cares about these children, the other countries know they can get away with throwing  US Court orders in garbage and apply their own law and interprete it favour the abductor. Just look at Japan...they need US to defend their nation, they need US to sell their cars and electronics and an American father is in jail awaiting trial.
 

Also, I was wondering if any LBPs that you know of have tried bringing the OCI's lack of support to the media's attention or would most LBPs be concerned about antagonizing them? And in asking, I realize there are hurdles to generating media attention for these issues.

I don't think any LBP cares about antagonizing the OCI. It is not like they can help you when you play nice with them. They are incompetent, period. You must have noticed by now that simply getting the story of an abduction has been very difficult for most of the LBPs. When they run a story, they hardly have enough time to get into the issue of OCI's effectiveness.

[sue]

I agree, the bias is very universal.  I remember when my daughter was in 2nd grade and a couple were divorcing, the mother was doing this same thing.  I happened to know her and knew she was the unfit one, but it was very hard on the father and I moved before the outcome.  And this was in a very wealthy part of San Diego County.....this happens everywhere.

[dmdaven2]

Carlos:
Is the bias against fathers because of Mexico being a more traditional country (i.e. cultural differences)? I'm asking because I'm inclined to think that factors in with Brazil and Japan as well. If so, then why the bias against LBP mothers or is there an anti-American component to it too (like there probably is with the other two countries)?
 
Also, I was wondering if any LBPs that you know of have tried bringing the OCI's lack of support to the media's attention or would most LBPs be concerned about antagonizing them? And in asking, I realize there are hurdles to generating media attention for these issues.

 
Hell no...I plan to fully exploit the worthlessness of the OCI...being silent only allows them to continue screwing other/future LBP over. They know they are worthless...but their excuse is there is nothing more they can do, it's policy.
 
And really, that's true...the fundamental issue is that the OCI shouldn't be in charge of Hague proceedings in the first place...yea they don't support LBP much, but that's the purpose, they want Diplomacy not our children back...and to get that they subliminally attempt to make the LBP accept their loss and leave the other country alone. :nixweiss: (thats my opinion at least)

[Lexi]

I am sure Carlos will repond. Here are my 2 cents....
 
Everytime I say this, I get shouted down...but I will say it again. Bias against fathers is pretty much universal. A father is guilty until he can prove his innocence. I faced it during my own dissolution process. Talk to any man who went through divorce proceedings in US and they will say the same thing. This bias is not limited to Courts. Public, media and Law enforcement have the same bias. Though I am not certain it is still the case, I think Middle East is the one exception where father is considered to be the guardian of children and hence favoured in child custody matters.

I agree, the bias is very universal. I remember when my daughter was in 2nd grade and a couple were divorcing, the mother was doing this same thing. I happened to know her and knew she was the unfit one, but it was very hard on the father and I moved before the outcome. And this was in a very wealthy part of San Diego County.....this happens everywhere.

I tend to agree with both of you that the bias is widespread, but just to qualify my point further, I feel it is likely more culturally entrenched and prevalent in traditional countries like Brazil, Japan, and Mexico. In other words, if fathers are already swimming upstream in these situations in the US, they have to do that even more in these countries. On a brighter note, there are some progressive thinkers and Judges Pinto and Nogueira in Brazil are examples of that.

[Lexi]

I am sure Carlos will repond. Here are my 2 cents....
 
I don't think any LBP cares about antagonizing the OCI. It is not like they can help you when you play nice with them. They are incompetent, period. You must have noticed by now that simply getting the story of an abduction has been very difficult for most of the LBPs. When they run a story, they hardly have enough time to get into the issue of OCI's effectiveness.

Hell no...I plan to fully exploit the worthlessness of the OCI...being silent only allows them to continue screwing other/future LBP over. They know they are worthless...but their excuse is there is nothing more they can do, it's policy.
 
And really, that's true...the fundamental issue is that the OCI shouldn't be in charge of Hague proceedings in the first place...yea they don't support LBP much, but that's the purpose, they want Diplomacy not our children back...and to get that they subliminally attempt to make the LBP accept their loss and leave the other country alone. :nixweiss: (thats my opinion at least)

Ok, from what both of you are saying, they're SO incompetent that they can't compromise your situation (e.g. drag their heels) any further even if you publicly complain about them. That's good in a small, twisted way because at least you're not impeded from exposing them. Of course it would be better if they were just effective in the first place instead of bumbling and conflicted!
 

You must have noticed by now that simply getting the story of an abduction has been very difficult for most of the LBPs. When they run a story, they hardly have enough time to get into the issue of OCI's effectiveness.

Yup, I've noticed - they perceive these Hague cases as custody fights i.e. messy, personal situations. Just to clarify, that's exactly why I was asking if any LBP has tried to position their pitch differently, by highlighting OCI incompetence in all of these cases, i.e. the media is supposed to be exposing government incompetence even if they're leery about interfering in individual, personal matters. Guess "supposed to be" is the operative phrase. Again, on a more positive note, they've covered 5 cases recently (David's, Savoie, El-Goharry, McCarty and the one yesterday from Japan) so maybe they're finally catching on.