On Christmas Eve, a New Jersey resident with a Jewish surname, David Goldman, was finally reunited with his 9-year-old son, Sean, who had been living in Brazil for the past five years, the object of a grotesque custody battle that would have made even Franz Kafka cringe.
In 2004, Sean, who was born in the United States, was abducted by his mother who took a purported vacation to her native Brazil, then called her husband to announce that she was divorcing him and keeping their son. This set off a series of lawsuits in both countries, along with diplomatic maneuvers that resulted in the United States threatening Brazil with trade consequences if the boy was not returned to his father.
Ironically, Sean's mother died last year, but Brazil's legal authorities still seemed to prefer the boy's Brazilian grandmother and stepfather as custodial guardians rather than accede to the rights of his natural father. This week, the chief judge of the Brazilian Supreme Court finally ruled that Sean must be returned to his father in the United States.
For Mr. Goldman, a 5-year nightmare has now become either a late Hanukkah present or Christmas arriving just in time.
This case recalls a similar international incident where a mother exercised her apparent right to kidnap her son to the horrified detriment of her husband, the child's father. In 1999, 6-year-old Elian Gonzales was taken by his mother from their native Cuba and, with nothing more buoyant than inner tubes, perilously set sail for the United States. The problem was: She never consulted her husband whether he approved of either this dangerous voyage or the kidnapping of his son.
Elian's mother died at sea but the boy miraculously survived, ending up with his mother's Miami relatives (some with criminal records). They claimed Elian as their own and refused to return him to his father in Cuba. Indeed, many Cubans in Miami with a long history of anti-Communist hysteria, seemed to believe that Elian belonged to everyone -- except his natural father, who wept at his son's empty bed for an entire year while lawyers and diplomats debated whether a father's rights to his child could be so easily trumped by either the wishes of a dead mother, the cynical interests of remote relatives, or the competing claims of ideological politics.
Eventually, federal SWAT agents stormed the home of Elian Gonzales' Miami relatives, who had defied court orders, and returned Elian to his father.
The moral and legal question that the cases of Sean Goldman and Elian Gonzalez both present is the following: Would the outcomes have been different, or would they have been decided more quickly and urgently, had the kidnappers been fathers and the world was forced to witness bereft mothers desperately waiting for the return of their children?
I think we know the answer. When it comes to child custody laws and perceptions, the double standard against fathers is unsurpassed in hypocrisy and prejudice.
Before we luxuriate too comfortably in the Hallmark Hall of Fame happy ending of the Goldman father-son reunion (in Disney World, of all places), let us not forget that in more domesticated custody battles, removed from the glare of international intrigue and spectacle, fathers are routinely treated as second, if not third-class citizens when it comes to the custodial rights of their children in the aftermath of divorce.
The law in virtually all American states is neutral, favoring neither parent nor gender in circumstances of divorce. But the way those laws are applied, however, by unprogressive, paternalistic, and unimaginative family law judges across America is anything but neutral. Unless the mother is either a drug addict or has a history of severe mental problems, custody will routinely be granted to her--especially in cases of young children--regardless of the demonstrated capacity and commitment of fathers who wish to become the primary caregivers of their children.
Feminism may have largely shattered the glass ceiling when it comes to equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Ironically, however, the same cannot be said of men who seek to stay at home and raise their children. Breadwinners are not permitted to become caretakers, nor can they challenge the anachronistic presumption that a woman's place is at home with her children (or at work but with a nanny caring for the children). The glass ceiling that women face is at least breakable. Men discover after divorce that the custodial role of fathers is sealed off with cement.
Perhaps mothers actually possess more muscle than feminists, or maybe true feminists have simply not shown the moral courage to fight on behalf of fathers and end the inequity that is so rampant in child custody cases.
More people should have been outraged by the tragic circumstances of Messrs. Goldman and Gonzalez: Two men forced to endure a separation from their children that would have been deemed morally intolerable had they been women.
Might this be what his mother died trying to prevent? Also no mention that Elian's dad had his own "checkered" past and allegedly sold his mother out in prostitution for drugs. In my mind things have to be pretty bad where I am to cross the ocean in an aluminum boat with a 5 year old to escape whatever my home life looks like. Not quite as cut and dry as Thane makes it out to be.
One chapter at least should be in the the words of the children who are in the center of these custody cases.
Years ago in Chicago there was a 12 year old whose parents wanted to return to Russia and the child wanted to stay in the US. The ACLU actually supported the parents claim to make the son return to Russia. The case was delayed though with legal maneuvering and the child when 16 was able to be recognized in the courts and was allowed to stay in the US. Years later I saw him on tv and he said his parents had never adjusted to life in America but he had been happy here and he seemed well adjusted to me ..
Barak Obama was in a somewhat similar situation and fortunately his maternal parents were allowed to raise him. His mother was alive and his biological father did not contest her raising of the child...and the biological father died before the mother died. Obama also has a half sister ....
No distinction is made between custody battles and abductions, not a small difference, no effort to review statistics on international abductions, where nationalisms come into play far more or at least as much as gender assumptions (although in Middle Eastern countries, the two seem to intersect to the disadvantage of mothers....) or to compare to domestic snatchings and (if possible) to custody battles.
The two cases here are an interesting comparison (and others could have been included), but don't add up to enough to carry the weight of the author's conclusions and concerns.
Perhaps the focus on blogs such as these should be on how do we prevent abductions. An abducted kid is an abducted kid. If we step outside the need to hypothesize that, "were this a woman..." or "this is typical for a man..." we can create responses that are more universally compassionate.
The global world needs to put Hague countries' feet to the fire more often, and - as was done in this case. Were the mom still alive, it's likely Sean would still be in Brazil. Prior to her death, the scenario should have warranted a more powerful US response. The thousands of parentally abducted children and their left-behind parents still look longingly to this case for inspiration, but are unlikely to see such a remedy.
There is a widespread man hate feeling loosely tied to the women's rights movement and social feeling in the western world. Women rights are very important as all civil liberties that protect and equate men and protect them from government (men of course meaning people, human beings). To me it has always been very important to be married/associated/partner/friends to an equal person, not inferior or superior (except by merit). Even the comment`s from this piece of news show how slighted society is towards pushing men towards the low roles of spouse betrayal and domestic violence. In a family of mostly women it took me a while in adult life to finaly understand how much this man hate feeling surrounded and affected me. I am gratefull to a long lost girlfriend who boosted my self esteem by showing how important and positive a man could be to his woman. And currently to my 3 year old daughter that truly loves and needs me.
It is high time men resume actions of high moral standing and family life and change by example a perception that has too many times proved to be true. If surprises me how many men who are not ready to become family men and fathers take this path so slightly. Western society has become to believe that you can sell your lunch and eat it too, that objectives are to be taken lightly and without sacrifice.
The father is the guardian. The rest is irrelevant.
If by his actions the father or mother loses his rights as guardian than it will of course and hopefully be revoked. But this is not the case at all in either of the cases discussed..
Public scrutiny was so great that if any male abuse episodes existed they would be found and exploited.
Ask Tiger Woods what the media is capable of.
I - Brazil sucks
I am a Brazilian and was appalled at how long our courts took to achieve such a simple conclusion.
The case of Goldman shows how sick and dead our (Brazilian) civil procedure and courts are, albeit recent reform. How many courts ruled in this case? How long did it take to achieve a binding result. Complexity and morosity are close friends of injustice and brothers of corruption, special interest lobbies and some very other ugly things we have shoved down our throats as brazilian citizens (should I say subjects or even more correctly slaves) . Have no illusions in Brazil, bureaucracy is king and all other members of society are worms in their presence. To those that disagree look at public sector benefits and salaries. Look even at this Goldman case. To meticulous analysts, Brazil is very similar to China in many ways and is an important indication of why Chinese economic growth will stop much earlier than everybody at this time figures. ...but I digress.
If a woman is the one to leave the relationship, even in the case of abuse, she is considered morally bankrupt. I have had a hundred students whose parents had fifty/fifty custody and most of the time it seems to me that the purpose of this arrangement is so that the father does not have to pay child support. I think men have it made.
It will all be about "damage control" and if this child of nine is fortunate enough to have a strong spirit, a calm mind and a forgiving heart all might not be lost.
My father had visitation rights. My mother told him he could pick us up anytime he wanted. I barely saw my father. Once every two weeks I'd spend the night at his house, and that was about it. My father didn't bother to show up at my sister's or my high school graduation (he showed up at my brother's, but that was different somehow because my brother is his only son *rolls eyes*). My mother didn't get the house or the car. She pretty much JUST got us. My father only paid $100 a month total for 4 kids, and even that he defaulted on quite a few times.
I'm not saying that most fathers are like this, many of them aren't, but it's a hell of a lot easier for a father to get away with not seeing his kids than a mother. We have this preconception that a father not seeing his kids is ok, but a mother not seeing her kids is the worst offense on the planet. I think that plays into situations like this all too often.
This is simply a return to single status with one significant exception - the court order that usually favors giving half the marital assets (mostly provided by the husband) to the wife, and often causes the husband to pay child support and even transitional or permanent alimony.
The real truth is that fathers continue to make their former incomes (the mythical "raise" from his married share), but it is greatly reduced by support, alimony and loss of half his assets, which may even include his pension benefits. To represent this as "an increased standard of living" is a total misrepresentation of the facts.
Truth is... no one does well after a divorce, unless the husband is wealthy in which case the divorced wife makes out like a bandit and accumulates assets and income far beyond her pre-marriage means.
That's just the way it is. Smug and condescending misrepresentations like the above serve no one well.
I'm not saying that a man should not be responsible for his children as much
as the mother,but I'm just remembering days when men;CONTROLED THE
FINANCES,AND THE PROPERTY.SOME WOMEN ENDURED MARRIAGE
BECAUSE OF THAT.IF SHE DIVORCED AN ABUSIVE HUSBAND,SHE HAD NO
INCOME OR HOUSING,SHE HAD TO LIVE WITH FAMILY AND RELY ON THEIR
SUPPORT.MEN COULD SELL THE HOUSE WITHOUT THE WIFE'S CONSENT.
SO BEFORE I GO ALL EMPATHETIC FOR MEN AND HOW BAD THEY ARE
TREATED,I'VE GOT TO GET OVER REMEMBERING DAYS GONE BY.
In WHAT state and in WHAT century in America was a husband allowed to sell property without the wife's consent?
Throughout the 20th century, AND EVEN STILL TODAY IN MANY STATES, a woman can buy and sell property without the consent of her husband but the husband CANNOT buy or sell property without the consent of his wife. It's called Dower rights.
I know your meme is widely accepted, and popular to repeat in ignorance because no one will challenge you because they buy the commonly believed myths too, but here in the real world we should operate on provable facts.
Please provide the cited reference to back up your statement.
She started working several months ago, however, her county advocates warned her to cut back her hours, so her " benefits " wouldn't be cut. She has since lost that job, for sleeping on duty.
Inexcusable that the step father wanted this last ounce of blood from the birth father
5 yrs.in BRAZIL,take note Americans,we're no different than other nations.
The RICH and POWERFUL at play.