« The Goddess of Rio | Main | The Credit Card Incident »

March 10, 2009


Ray Adkins

U N F R E A K I N G B E L I A V A B L E!!!!!!!

Not only is LINS E SILVA a liar and a DESPERATE CRIMIMINAL, but he also seems to be a terrible lawyer, his arguments are poorly constructed and poorly expressed in writting, he must make his money as an attorney solely based on his family's traditional name and not on his professionalism. This fact was made clear on this disaster of a letter he made public.
He is so desperate that he is making a fool out of himself and his lawyer family's legacy.

João Marcelo

I have to agree, Ray´s comment seems on the spot. The JPLeS letter is hardly a response to any of the acusations being made, but rather a emotional rant. I can understand where he is coming from, with his attachment to the kid, but cannot accept such low arguments, especially from someone said to be a family law expert!

He should have been the first person insisting that Bruna, on 2004, went back to the US and settled the case as a responsible person. Lets be realistic here... Back on 2004, if instead of fleeing with the child she had returned as agreed and filled for divorce, she would be more than likely to receive custody, and a reasonable judge would allow her to return to Brazil, but still grant David his rights of visitation, maybe with vacations in the US, etc...


Something I encounter frequently with my Brazilian friends is the refusal to take a definitive stand about an issue and to instead hide behind the whole, "Well, there are two sides to every story, so who am I to judge?" thing, as if this somehow makes them more enlightened than the person willing to call bullshit. I understand this is largely cultural, borne from hundreds of years of colonial and military rule where life was easier if you embraced apathy, but it's still frustrating.

When I worked at a newspaper, I came across the same attitude with our readers after we ran an article with a clear-cut position that ran counter to their own. "I thought journalists were supposed to be OBJECTIVE," they'd sniff. There's this strange notion that "objectivity" means you can't be critical and that you have to present every statement with an air of legitimacy, no matter how ridiculous or obvious of a lie it is. So, even if the Lins e Silva family are clearly lying, I think some people believe "journalistic integrity" requires presenting and accepting both sides as equal.

The state of journalism in the US is abysmal because it's been highjacked by this way of thinking, leading to atrocities like articles about creationists lacking descriptors like "batshit insane."

Of course, this is a case ripped straight from a novela, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the media want to sensationalize it as much as possible and to form a polarizing narrative that keeps readers/viewers coming back for more.


Li e reli a carta do LS. Nao pude acreditar que um advogado pudesse ser tao infantil e despreparado. A carta retrata so e simplesmente o quanto desesperado ele esta. Pela primeira vez desde o comeco desta saga, ele esta sentindo que os orgoes do judiciario estao tendo acesso aos dois lados da estoria e esta apavorado. Advogado da area de familia que eh, ele conhece a lei. Ele sabe que esta desamparado legalmente. Nao existem razoes legais para sustentar sua postura. Ele sabe. Assim, sabendo que nao existem razoes legais e razoaveis para manter Sean no Brasil, longe do pai biologico, o "coitado" do LS apela ao sistema judiciario num pueril e mediocre esforco de parecer "a vitima". Tadinho dele. Eu realmente achei a carta do LS uma otima peca de defesa pro David. Nao ha nada ali que sustente qualquer motivo de permanencia de Sean no Brasil. Eh tao ridiculo!
Infelizmente minhas amigas cariocas acreditam que o menino deve ficar no Rio. Ficam com pena da avo materna e do padrasto. Pena?? E a lei?? E o David?? E o Sean?? Minhas amigas sao advogadas, fazem parte do sistema judiciario do Rio e fiquei assustada e absurdamente chocada com a reacao delas. Umas nao querem nem tomar partido. Alegam que "nao sabemos bem dos fatos, que a Bruna deve ter tido os motivos dela para 'fugir'" etc. Quando eu disse que nada disso interessa e que a lei deve ser obedecida, elas simplemente desconvesaram e deram de ombro. Uma pena. Que decepcao.

ps: O que era a mae da Bruna repetindo a palavra "adEvogado" na entrevista ao fantastico??? Fiquei com vergonha!


Mais um episódio da série "Tô de Saco Cheio do Brasil!"

Esse caso está acabando com minha sanidade mental! Haja estômago para ler essa carta, pessimamente mal escrita (a não ser que quem tenha escrito seja um "adevogado" e não um advogado), ver a entrevista da avó no Fantástico, a manipulação Globo e tudo o mais...


Your blog has jumped the shark. Goodbye and good luck! :-)

K. McDermott

People MUST realize that this case is not about the US vs Brazil. It is about a 8 year old AMERICAN BORN boy who has been kept away from his natural father for more then 4 1/2 years. Sean has had only 2 meetings with his father and those are less then 6 hours together!! Joao Paulo Lins e Silva has no blood connection to Sean other then being married to his mother for less then a year. How ever lets remember, Sean was forced to call him Daddy, Sean was forced to forget about his REAL FATHER and THE REST OF HIS FAMILY IN THE US!! If people had courage anymore, they would inviestigate the truth. They would look at the court proceedings in Brazil and find out the Sean's mother openly said more then once, that David was the best father she could have hoped for, she had no ill will towards him. I dare anyone and everyone to investigate for your self and tell me who is telling the truth, who is being honest and geniuine and who is telling lies on top of lies out of fear, and pure greed. I believe that at the end of your investigation you will come to the same conclusion that I have. That the Lins e Silvas and the Riberio's are only speaking of lies, desperation and fear. They don't know what to do so they have hired a PR firm to help them and it has back fired badly. They have some supporters, yet once those supporters investigate and learn that they have been lied to, lead around like animals by people who are too scared to tell the truth, it is going to be very painful for all. As I have said before, I dare anyone and everyone to investigate the facts of this case. Look at the honest facts, don't listen to anyone. Then you tell me who is telling the truth and who is spewing smear, lies and wrong because it sure as ****** is not the man that I believe in, the man WHO IS SEAN'S NATURAL FATHER AND DESERVES TO HAVE SEAN BY HIS SIDE FROM NOW ON!!!

Ray Adkins


I had the complete opposite reaction from the Sao Paulo attorneys and Judges I know.
They all think like you, there are no ifs or buts, the child has been KIDNAPPED, Brazil is a signatory of the Hague Convention, the judges in Rio were not impartial and twisted the interpretation of the law, maybe for money or for influence and a silent promise of future favors...Rio's justice system is known around Brazil for being peculiarly corrupt.
100% of all the professionals I have shared this story are in shock at the poor decisions taken by Rio's judges and they are relieved to see the case transferred to Brasilia.
The truth of the matter is that the Brazilian government is embarrassed by the poor decisions not following the Hague Convention and they are trying to find a solution that reverses the stupidity from the Rio's judges without humiliating them in public.
They have a heck of puzzle to figure out of this one...


What has been made of this case is RIDICULOUS!!! Were you already here when we had another case where a brazilian boy child of a brazilian and a taiwanese was taken to Taiwan without the family's consent here where he lived, when his parents died? Well, that was terrible, the boy couldn't come home, he didn't know his family there and we had no diplomatic ways to deal with it, since taiwan isn't considered a country and china didn't do anything... In the end, the boy could come to the grandma that always took care of him when his parents were alive.
So, how come now there is so many people protecting this man who IS ILEGALLY and immorally guarding this child!
I can only wish and send positive energies so he can have his boy back, and SOON, because this fake father, is buying time with all this media mess, either to make the boys mind or to come up with something even more ridiculous...



It is really a comfort to know that in Sao Paulo people are more aware of the facts, than the sentimental BS that the LS and the Bianchis are spreading around. I completely agree with you that this whole saga is as simple as 1 + 1: the child has been KIDNAPPED, Brazil is a signatory of the Hague Convention and the kid has to return to his father. PERIOD. I am really disappointed with my "cariocas" friends. It makes me feel sad. I thought they were smarter than that. I have been living in the US for the last 3 years and am married to a brazilian/american citizen. I would never EVER do what Bruna did to Sean and David.
I practiced law in Rio for almost a decade (I like to consider myself a recovery attorney, LOL) and can tell you by my own experience that there are plenty of good, great judges in Rio that follow the rules and deliver justice. However, there are always some that can be easily manipulated.
I am pleased to know that we have a great group of smart brazilians join David in his cause!
I hope the Brazilian government will make the right (and only) decision (soon)and return Sean to his father, so my fellow "carioca" friends and the judiciary system in Rio will learn something from this and do better next time.


What was unbelievable is that Lins e Silva wrote that they'd been together for 4 1/2 years. How come?! Not only he doesn't know how to write, but also is not very good with math either. Bruna did everything wrong. I think she'd get custody if she did things right. I just can't believe how far it's been.

I watched fantastico and it made me sick to my stomach..
When I read the letter i thought instantly that JPLeS wrote it to get support in Rio. But only for those who don't know and won't research the case. disgusting!


"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."
Mark Twain


I was reading the BSH blog 2 minutes ago and found an excellent text posted there from a Sao Paulo Family Therapist, Roberta Palerm

PORTUGUESE VERSION: (please find the english version below)

Sean, um menino muito amado

Li a matéria da revista Época (07/03/09) sobre o menino Sean Goldman. Achei que a matéria não foi imparcial. Mostrou que a participação da mãe na vida de uma criança é a única que importa. Então, o pai que tem seu filho afastado de seu convívio, tem que simplesmente pensar na criança? Tem que deixar a mãe decidir se o filho terá pai ou não, como se o filho fosse propriedade dela? E se fosse o contrário? Se o pai fosse embora e levasse a criança para o país de origem, será que ficaria por isso mesmo? Pensariam nos anos de convívio e laços afetivos formados, ou todos lutariam para devolver a criança para a mãe tão sofrida? Uma pena que ainda pensem que um filho precisa apenas da mãe e o pai pode ser apenas um fornecedor de espermatozóides. A matéria deixou claro que, uma vez que a mãe foi embora do país com a criança, o pai poderia compreender, pelo bem do filho, que seria melhor ele pegar um avião e vir gentilmente ao Brasil para ver o filho. Quem sabe a cada quinze dias. Se o pai viesse ao Brasil para conviver com o filho, estaria de acordo com a mudança feita pela mãe e perderia então, a chance de conviver com seu filho, pois vamos lembrar que ele mora em outro país. O pai veio rapidamente ao Brasil depois que a mãe morreu, pois tinha certeza de que nada o impediria de levar o filho dessa vez. Parecia óbvio, a mãe morreu, resta o pai. Ele encontrou caminhos para ter dinheiro para custear advogados e viagens e isso foi muito criticado também. A mãe não faria o mesmo no lugar dele? Por que se uma mãe movesse montanhas para arrecadar dinheiro estaria lutando por um filho e o pai é só interesseiro? Ele é o pai da criança e independente da mãe ter ido embora do país de má fé, ou não, não faz alguma diferença. O pai teve algum direito de opinar a respeito dessa decisão? O pai pode ter sido um péssimo marido, mas não deixa de ser o pai que esse menino tem. Qual é o problema da mulher trabalhar e o pai ficar em casa cuidando da criança? Então a criança gosta menos de um pai ou de uma mãe que trabalha fora? Ele era um pai presente, tanto é que ficava com o filho enquanto a mãe saia para trabalhar. Ele era o cuidador na maior parte do tempo e foi afastado sem ninguém pensar em vínculo sócio-afetivo naquela ocasião. Nada consta sobre o pai ser agressivo ou perigoso. Depois que temos filhos, nem sempre temos a mesma liberdade de ir e vir de antes. Ao menos não deveríamos ter. A mãe estava infeliz, quis ir embora, mas pensou apenas nela e não se importou que o filho não teria mais um pai presente. Tenho certeza de que o padrasto e os familiares maternos são excelentes pessoas, bons cuidadores, pessoas que o Sean ama e com quem vive bem. A avó perdeu a filha, ajuda a criar a neta que não tem mãe. Tudo isso é muito triste. Se ficar longe do neto será uma tristeza maior ainda. Mas por que não é uma tristeza para o pai estar afastado do filho? Sou madrasta e sei que é perfeitamente possível passar a amar uma criança aos 4 anos, mas por que o amor do padrasto é tão fiel e o amor do pai e tão desvalidado? Para manter, mesmo à distância, um vínculo da criança com o pai, não seria importante manter a língua inglesa? Mas fazem questão de dizer que o menino pouco se lembra da língua paterna, para ser mais um fator que poderia dificultar a mudança da guarda. Agora alegam que muito tempo se passou e o contato sócio-afetivo está todo no Brasil. Isso é golpe baixo. Pois é óbvio que toda a vida do menino está estruturada no Brasil e levá-lo embora imediatamente não é o mais adequado. Porém, Ele tem 8 anos e será capaz de se adaptar muito bem à mudanças desde que não seja pressionado por quem não quer que ele vá embora. Se o pai receber o direito de levá-lo embora, eu serei totalmente a favor de que eles tenham a oportunidade de viverem juntos nos Estados Unidos para resgatar a relacão e formar um vínculo afetivo. O menino viria ao Brasil passar as férias escolares com os familiares maternos. Depois de um tempo, se o filho quiser voltar a morar no Brasil, tudo bem se o pai concordar e então passariam a conviver nas férias escolares. Ao menos teriam a oportunidade de conviver, apesar da brusca separação anterior. O menino está muito bem no Brasil. Tem uma família amorosa, um padrasto atencioso, excelente escola, mas tudo isso não pode ser mais importante do que ter um pai presente. O pai preferiu seguir o caminho da lei para ter o filho de volta ao país de origem, mas os anos se passaram e agora o menino tem seus laços afetivos no Brasil. Nesse caso o pai passa a ser o vilão, o culpado por querer mudar a vida do menino. Os familiares brasileiros estão desvalidando o pai. E isso é bom para a criança? Dizer que o pai não trabalha, que era péssimo parceiro sexual, que só está interessado no dinheiro do filho. Isso é para o bem da criança? Li no Estado de São Paulo (08/03/09) que o pai vai abrir mão da herança que o filho tem direito. Até isso ele precisa fazer. Por que as pessoas não podem acreditar que um pai pode querer ser pai? Por que só mãe é vista como quem realmente luta por um filho e não tem outros interesses? Depois de tantos anos, a volta desse menino para o país de origem precisa ter uma passagem gradual. Caso o pai tenha o direito de levá-lo, o ideal seria que ele ficasse no Brasil alguns meses, convivendo diariamente com o filho para formar um vínculo, desde que ao mesmo tempo o menino não estivesse sofrendo pressão das pessoas que querem que ele fique. Certamente os famliares maternos não fariam isso. Pensariam apenas no bem estar da criança, já que seguiriam a decisão da justiça que decidiu que o menino voltaria aos Estados Unidos com o pai. Eles querem que o pai entenda que agora o filho já está no Brasil, já está acostumado. Simples assim. Vamos ver se entenderão se a justiça permitir que o pai o leve de volta.

Roberta Palermo
Terapeuta Familiar

ENGLISH VERSION (I got the translated text from the BSH blog as well)

Sean, a boy who is very loved

I read the article in Epoca magazine (07/03/09) about the boy Sean Goldman. I found the article to be not very impartial. It showed that the participation of the mother in the life of a child is the only participation that matters. So, the father who has the son removed from his life has to simply “think about the child”? He has to let the mother decide if the son will have a father or not, as if the son were her property?

And what if the situation were reversed? What if the father were to go away and take the child to his country of origin, would the reaction be the same? Would people think about the years of cohabitation and the emotional ties that were formed, or would everybody fight to return the child to the suffering mother?

It is a shame that people still think that a child needs only his mother, while the father can be just the one who supplied the sperm.

The article made it clear that, once the mother left the country with the child, the father should be able to understand, for the good of the son, that it would be better for him to catch a plane and come meekly to Brazil to see him. Say, every two weeks or so.

[If the father were to come to Brazil to have contact with the child, he would be agreeing with the change made by the mother and would lose, therefore, the chance to live with him, because, let’s remember, he lives in another country.]

The father came quickly to Brazil after the mother died, because he was certain that nothing would impede him to take his son home this time. It seemed obvious: the mother had died, the father was left.

He found ways to finance trips and lawyers, and this was also criticized. Would not the mother do this in a similar situation? Why is it that if a mother moved mountains to raise money she would be fighting for her son, but the father is just “in it for the money”? He is the father of the child, and whether or not the mother left the country in bad faith, it makes no difference. Did the father have any right to express his opinion in this matter? He may have been a terrible husband, but this does not make him any less the father of this child.

What is the problem with a woman working and the father staying at home to take care of the child? Does a child like the parent that works outside the home less? He was an involved father, so much so that he stayed with the boy when the mother went to work. He was the caregiver during the greater part of the time, and was separated without anybody thinking about the “socio-emotional bond” on that occasion.

There is no evidence that the father was aggressive or dangerous. After we have children, we do not always have the same liberty to come and go as before. At least we shouldn’t have. The mother was unhappy, wanted to leave, but she thought only of herself and did not care that the son would have an absent father.

I am sure that the stepfather and the maternal family are excelent people, good caregivers, people whom Sean loves and with whome he lives well. The grandmother lost her daughter, and helps to take care of the granddaughter who has no mother. If she were separated from the granddaughter it would mean still greater sadness for her.

But why is it not sadness for the father to be separated from his son? I am a stepmother and I know that it is quite possible to come to love a child of four years, but how is the love of the stepfather so true, and the love of the father so invalidated?

To maintain, even at a distance, a link between the child and his father, would it not be important to maintain the English language? But they make a point of saying that the child hardly remember his native tongue, in order to present one more factor that could make a change in custody more difficult.

Now the allege that much time has passed and the socio-emotional contact is all in Brazil. This is a low blow. It is obvious that all the child’s life is in Brazil and taking him away immediately is no longer adequate. However, he is 8 years old and will be very capable of adapting very well to the changes as long as he is not pressured byt someone who does not want him ot leave. If the father receives the right to take him away, I will be totally in favor of them having the opportunity to live together in the United States to rescue the relationship and form an emotional bond. The child would come to Brazil to spend school breaks with his maternal family. After a while, if the child whishes to return and live in Brazil, fine, if the father agrees. Then they could still spend school breaks together. At least they would have the oportunity to live together, in spite of the former abrupt separation.

The child is very well in Brazil. He has a loving family, an attentive step-father, an excellent school, but none of this can be more important than a present father.

The father preferred to follow the law in order to get the son returned to his country of origin, but the years passed and now the boy has is emotional bonds in Brazil. In this case the father becomes the villain, guilty of wanting to change the life of his son. The Brazilian family members are invalidating the father. Is this good for the child? Saying that the son doesn’t work, that he was a terrible sexual partner, that he is only interested in the son’s money—is this for the good of the child?

I read in the Estado de São Paulo (03/08/09) that the father is giving up his right to the son’s inheritance. It was even necessary for him to do this. Why can’t people believe that a father might just want to be a father? Why is it that just the mother is seen as someone who fights for the child with no second intentions?

After so many years, the return of this child to his original country needs to be gradual. Should the father win the right to take him, the ideal would be for him to stay in Brazil a few months, having regular contact with the son in order to form a bond, as long as at the same time the child is not suffering pressure from the people that want him to stay. Certainly the maternal family would not do this. They would only think of the wellbeing of the child, since they would already be following the judicial decision that the child return to the United States with his father.

They want the father to understand that the son is already in Brazil, and is used to it. It’s so simple. Let’s see if they will understand if the court permits the father to take him back.

Roberta Palermo
Family Therapist.


I just read at "oglobo online" that David is back in Rio de Janeiro to see his son!!!!
Here is the link


Se o Brazil é tão ruim, O que você está fazendo aqui?
Você não pode denegrir toda a classe judiciária do RJ só porque contesta uma decisão.
Se o pai levar essa criança do Brasil será uma injustiça, pai é quem cria!
Se não está do seu agrado.

Ray Adkins


In my opinion BOTH!
Why don't you get the hell out of Rio and leave the city for the decent people.

Account Deleted

Deixe de ser grosseira sra.Carla. Ninguém aqui disse que o Brasil é ruim. O Brasil está sim, ruim. Não é a dona do blog que está a denegrir a classe judiciária: o senhor LIns e Silva está se encarregando disso e é contra ele, o seu escritório, o modo venal como se comporta que devemos lutar para reconquistar o respeito por nosso sistema judicial. Advogados e juízes como ele devem ser abolidos e banidos de nosso pais.Pai pode ser aquele que cria. Mas Lins e Silva não é o pai da criança nem esta criança lhe foi dada em adoção. Ele apenas foi um segundo companheiro da mae da criança. E a meu ver o exame de sanidade deveria se estendar a esta avó, que por ser omissa como mãe, deixou sua falecida filha agir de modo irresponsável e ocasionar toda essa tragédia.Nem ela nem o advogado LS estão em condições de criar ninguém, ela porque é idosa e ele porque não pode deixar seu trabalho para tal: deste modo, com quem andam ficando estas duas crianças? COM EMPREGADOS. Será que em sua cabeça não passa a possibilidade de em sendo um homem jovem o advogado brevemente irá ter outra companheira: quem lhe garante que a mesma irá cuidar da neném? e como lhe impor que cuide de uma criança que não tem vínculo algum nem consigo, nem com o advogado? Se pais e mães biológicos andam falhando em seus papéis o que poderemos dizer quanto a responsabilidade caindo sobre dois filhos que não são fruto de relacionamentos


Li seus coments sobre o caso do Sean e estou de acordo com vc. Sei que o sistema judiciario do meu Rio de Janeiro nao esta com nada. Quero mais que esse caso se resolva logo e que o David leve seu filho de volta para casa. Eu sou casada com um americano e temos um filho que tambem se chama Sean,jamais tiraria meu filho do convivio com o pai. Esse advogado que esta retendo o filho do David eh o mesmo que mandou um menino canadense para compania de um pai alcolatra. Detalhe que esse menino ja estava ai no Brasil a uns 4 anos com a mae. A mae desse menino tinha provas que o pai do garoto era agrecivo e nem isso livrou ela de perder o filho porque o Brasil teve que respeitar o tal tratado. Entao se o senhor advogado fez valer a lei, porque nao cumpre a mesma?!

The comments to this entry are closed.