2. On Court

Roberta and I got divorced by the end of February, 2002. Even though we had been having terrible fights and there was a mutual incomprehension, for three years we hadn’t think about going to court to fight over Henrique’s custody. Too bad, for it would have prevented some of the terrible fights.

Things changed in 2005. On January 1st, she started dating Alves, a guy I knew from the university where I studied journalism; he was returning to Brazil after sometime in Australia and the USA, where he worked as an oceanographer. In February, Alves moved in with Roberta (and Henrique). The dog Roberta had bought Henrique was sent away.

Alves took Roberta to visit his place in Washington. They were in the USA from February 18th to 28th. During this period, I slept with Henrique for seven nights — the other four he spent with his nanny, to whom I spoke every day.

This trip was enough to made me suspicious. The confirmation came on April 20th, in the form of a memorandum sent to me by Roberta's lawyer. She was requiring a parenting plan, and there it was, on the sixth and last item: “(...) if, by any chance, the person who pleas moves to another brazilian state or abroad, the parenting plan is, since now, altered”. And it informed that, in the case of that surprise happening, I’d see Henrique twice a year.

Things were already weird, the future of a child being written in a trap designed for morons. As she had chosen to try to scam me instead of speaking openly, I hired a famous lawyer to represent me. She immediately hired a famous lawyer herself, but her tactics did not change. On June 2nd, another memorandum arrived. At the end of the blabber, an item that said “both parts give one another total, reciprocal release so that one will protest against anything, be it written here or not.” The moron here was not going to be trapped again.

On June 9th, then, Roberta required a parenting plan. As to the first item, there was nothing to argue about, because I never doubted — at least until we were parted — that Henrique should live with his mother. About my visitation rights, it was said that “the father is an alcoholic”, has “emotional discontrol” and, because of that, he could “irreversibly harm phisically and emotionally his child”.

Despite her “kindness” (none of them proved, for they were false), Roberta wanted Henrique to spend eight nights a month with me and two weekends. For a mother who feared so much what the father could do to their son, she was full of generosity. The judge from the 7th family law section not only granted it, but also gave two more nights every month. With an angry face on, Roberta signed the deal on August 16th.

On October 8th, she and Alves got married in a religious ceremony. They were legally married since April. As the judge from the 7th law section was on vacation, they asked the substitute judge an authorization so that Henrique could join them in their Australian honeymoon. There was no reference to the fact that Henrique was an autist, to the impact a trip that long could have on him nor to the tests he was going to be submitted to on Australian institutions. During 15 days, Henrique crossed the world twice and, considering he went to Johannesburg, in South Africa, and to a lot of places in Australia, he spent almost 60 hours inside airplanes. He went without my authorization.

On November 3rd, his stepfather sent me a message informing that he, Roberta and Henrique (!) were planning to move abroad — after 8 months of planning, that was the first time they talked to me about it. He was asking for my authorization. Only he wouldn’t tell me where they were going, did not mention schools, therapies or anything of this sort. He wanted me to authorize it, just like that. On the 8th, he insisted, by e-mail: “I’m still waiting for you to answer my simple question”. On the 11th, it was Roberta’s turn: “Do you authorize your son to travel abroad with his mother? Until this simple question is answered, please do not send me any more messages (...)”. That’s a funny idea of simplicity...

As I did not authorize it, I just had to wait for them to submit to court a big pile of letters and brochures about the Australian paradise, showing that Henrique should leave Brazil. That happened on December 16th, casually just before judicial recess and a vacation trip I had planned with Henrique. Despite such an unhappy coincidence, I was able to answer them on time.

It’s worth of note that were part of the big pile: compliments (theirs and from others) to the stepfather, who described himself as Henrique’s “socioaffective father” and who thought his Australian job was an offer one couldn’t refuse; emphasis on the “family cell” and “sane and well-structured ambient” Henrique couldn’t do without, even though it lacked his father, who wouldn’t have to spend a dime with his son and would still have the right to see him once a year; and a whole bunch of statements, some questionable and one corrupted (from Henrique’s phonoaudiologist and psychomotricists, who later said Roberta changed their words in a biased way and far from their original meaning).

The so-called “conciliation audience” was scheduled for January 25th 2006. Roberta was three months pregnant, her husband had this great job offer, Henrique’s classes in his new school were about to start, the tickets were scheduled, the situation had to be solved. My chances of reverting it, according to experts, were minimum. But Antônio Iloízio Barros Bastos, judge from the 4th section, and Américo de Oliveira Filho, public attorney, understood that the urgency alleged by the mother wasn’t more important than Henrique's best interests. I was determined, then, an examination to help the judge decide if the trip was the best option.

A week later, Roberta’s lawyer protested against the decision and asked for a revision. The petition is a masterpiece, but, unfortunately, I’m not allowed to reproduce it here. It was rejected and the examination went on for a month and a half, between March and April.

It’s also a shame I can’t publish its results. In less than 20 pages, the whole case is summarized. There are 18 interviews with me, Roberta (both with and without Henrique), his stepfather, his grandparents and with professionals so that the psychologist would understand what was going on. In a sentence dated April 27th, which is public and it’s on the Justice Court site, the judge wrote:

“(...) Nonetheless, it will be extremely difficult for the father to visit his son on the other side of the world, since the mother has disrespected more than once the parenting plan, as stated. And the investigator states that serious consequences may be expected for the minor if the link between father and son is broke. It is also important to stress there are authoritarian traces in the stepfather behavior, as stated. The damage probability will increase if he goes to another country; besides, it will more difficult to revert it. If he stays with his father, at least for now, it will be easier to re-examine the situation in some months. If, by then, the absence of the mother proves to be too harmful, this court may revert the sentence".

The sentence was reverted on a Saturday evening by an evening shift appeal court judge without me being listened to.

It doesn’t matter what Roberta's new lawyer had said to get the preliminary order, because it is clear it was not decisive. But there are some meaningful excerpts:

The professionals assisting Henrique in Brazil unanimously stated that moving to Australia was good for him. (It’s a remarkable case of a unanimity of one.)

I was, without thinking about the benefits offered in Australia, refusing their moving by egotism and feelings that doesn’t “elevate” me as a father. (In other words, it’s not enough to be a father, you must renounce your child. And what I think it’s the best for him.)

I wouldn’t have conditions to establish a relationship with my son because I see a psychiatrist and I take prescription drugs. (I think if other people did the same, more children would live better.)

And it is stressed, in bold letters, that I was trying to “separate the minor from his mother”. I wonder where I said, wrote or act in accordance to that. The only time I mentioned it was November 2005, when I wrote to Roberta that, if she wanted so much to move abroad, she could let Henrique stay with me for a while, and later we would decide it. But I never wanted to separate him from his mother.

On May 29th, 2006, it was protocolled my request against the preliminary order, so that Henrique would come back to Brazil. The drawing took the case to the 12th Civil Chamber. As a preliminary order ("measure that precedes the main object of the action”, according to the dictionary) which dealt with an autistic child taken to the other side of the world by a seven months pregnant mother, there was a clear sense of urgency in it.

Fourteen months later, July 2007, my appeal was denied and the injuction granted that authorized the journey (or trip) was sustained. However, it was dediced that Henrique must come twice a year to Brazil.

In 2006, I only earned the right to spend the school holidays with my son. I requested it on October 3rd. Strangely, the whole lawsuit disappeared from the notary's office of the 4th Family Section that same month. We had to turn it into another one, which took a few weeks.

By the beginning of November, it was confirmed I could pick Henrique up in Australia on December 9th and be with him until January 29th, 2007, spending, this way, school holidays with him. I bought tickets (for both of us), and got an Australian visa (in the last minute). By e-mail, I informed Roberta I was leaving — she didn’t answered me. The Brazilian Embassy also informed her, by phone, about my trip.

On December 6th, after the initial check-in for the marathon Rio-Buenos Aires-Sydney-Perth, my lawyer called me saying Roberta’s lawyer had advised me not to board, for she was bringing Henrique to Brazil. Unnecessary to say this information was not trustworthy. I boarded.

On the morning of December 9th, I went to pick Henrique up. The house was all locked up. Behind the glass door, an unopened letter from the Australian justice — probably informing about my trip — was visible, even though on the envelope I could read “by hand”. On the left there was a small pile of garbage, some leaves and objects. I went closer and noticed those were the toys I had sent Henrique for his 6 years old birthday, on September. Those were toys he used to play with at my place. On the top of the small pile, facing it, what looked like a small camera.



For five days I didn't know where my son was. In Australia? In a neighbor country, waiting for me to leave? In Brazil? By e-mail and face to face, I spoke to Brazilian and Australian authorities, I tormented them a lot, their immigration services were contacted, but only on Thursday 14th, I had the confirmation Henrique was already in Rio. There was even a “special audience” scheduled for the 18th, because Roberta would only hand me over Henrique on court. On the 16th, already in Brazil, I got a message from her saying she was “deeply sorry for what had happened”.

After eight months, I saw my son on a courtroom. He was a little confused, kept staring at me while having an ice cream and, after three minutes, he stood up, touched the nape of my neck and said “wake up!”. To him, “wake up!” also means “stand up!”.

We left that place together and we spent the next 5 weeks almost entirely together. He would be with Roberta on Mondays, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and between Thursdays mornings to Fridays afternoons. Almost every time his mother went to pick him up at my place, Henrique looked at me and started to cry, for he would feel he was being taken away from me again. On the last time, since I had already told him about the trip, he cried a lot, from the moment he was in the apartment until he saw his mother. She made him say "Bye, daddy!", which he did with the saddest look I’ve ever seen Henrique with. Unhappily, some people pretend not to see. Or doesn't care. That was one of the worse moments of my and his life.

On the days before the trip, there were a series of strange attitudes, like I could avoid Henrique going back to Australia. If I could, I would obviously do it. I had to sign a boarding authorization and make a deal so I can see him twice a year in person — one time there, at my costs, and one here, paying for his ticket — and once a week via Skype. The wound between me and Henrique is still open and the escape is still unpunished.