This is the only post we have seen expressing HATRED for the fact that a little boy was reunited with the father. Of course, the writer of the hate piece is none other than claudine dombrowski, who does not believe Parental Alienation is real.
Typical behavior from someone with Borderline Personality Disorder.
Notice she only focuses on the “best interest of the woman”, no mention of the child. Poor battered me.
I am sure that the remaining dozen hate sites will pick up her post and repost it in a typical “Sybil attack.”
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The New York Times and Rep. Chris Smith say: “The boy was taken to Brazil in 2004 by the woman who was Mr. Goldman’s wife at the time…” So much for throwing the parent card. That wasn’t “the woman who was Mr. Goldman’s wife”. That was the little boy’s MOTHER, who bore this child, and who took him home, away from the New Jersey she hated, and into the bosom of her extended family, where she herself had grown up. The Goldmans did not meet and commence their relationship in New Jersey. They only married and settled there once Bruna already was pregnant with Sean. Had Goldman been reasonable and allowed the child’s mother to go home as she had begged to do, and to retain custody of the baby she risked her life to bring into the world, he would not have a complaint now about having been cut off. But selfishly, he did not do that.
“…relatives of Mr. Goldman’s ex-wife, who died last year, were exploring legal options that would enable them to keep Sean…” Once again, “ex-wife” is used instead of “mother”. Motherhood is invisible. The relatives are described as if they are strangers, rather than the beloved family members and home this child understandably does not want to leave. They include blood relatives of the child, with whom he has lived for nearly his entire childhood memory with his mother, who recently — ironically — died in childbirth.
Pandering Rep. Smith has called David Goldman the “primary caregiver” and the child’s “best friend”, again ignoring the woman who gave birth to the child and actually was the child’s closest attachment. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/world/americas/23rio.html
Is the situation painful and difficult? Of course. But propaganda does not help. While the U.S. press and politicos condemn Bruna for bringing her baby with her to Brazil, and now also condemn the boy’s real emotional family for wanting to protect him, the same media ignore that what the father seeks to do to this child who just lost his mother is exponentially worse. Notwithstanding the ignorant peanut galleries who chime along in favor of men’s rights to declare where their chattel women and the children they bear must reside, mothers of children who are abducted from them don’t seem to get Congressional Resolutions or incessant international media coverage. That apparently is reserved mainly for mothers AS abductors. The expedient application of a faux gender neutrality to parentage primarily for the benefit of fathers’ rights is Orwellian.
Technorati Tags: Bias,Sean,Goldman,Brazil,abduction,justice,York,Times,Chris,Smith,woman,wife,parent,card,MOTHER,Jersey,Goldmans,relationship,Bruna,custody,life,world,complaint,Once,memory,David,friend,attachment,situation,propaganda,father,rights,children,Congressional,coverage,gender,parentage,Orwellian,options,strangers,members,galleries,fathers
Posted by Claudine Dombrowski at 8:52 PM