SAO PAULO – A Brazilian supreme court justice on Tuesday suspended a court order granting immediate custody of a 9-year-old boy to his U.S. father, extending a multiyear battle that has reached the highest levels of both the Brazilian and U.S. governments.

The decision by Justice Marco Aurelio was in response to an emergency request filed by a small Brazilian political party that argued the boy should stay in Brazil and claimed that the family case has wrongly been turned into a political matter, the supreme court said on its Web site.

David Goldman had traveled to Brazil after a federal judge in Rio de Janeiro issued an order this week for his son Sean to be delivered to him Wednesday afternoon at the U.S. Consulate in Rio. The boy currently lives with his Brazilian stepfather.

The justice's decision is not the last word: The Progressive Party's request must now be heard by the full court. No date has been set, and scheduling hearings before Brazil's highest court can take anywhere from days to months.

The boy's mother, Bruna, took him for a two-week vacation to her native Brazil in 2004 and never returned. She divorced David Goldman in Brazil and married Rio de Janeiro lawyer Joao Paulo Lins e Silva. She died last year of complications from the birth of another child.

The conservative Progressive Party, which filed the request with the court Wednesday afternoon, is one of many small Brazilian political parties allied with the leftist Workers Party of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The Progressive Party argued that the boy should not be returned to the United States in such an "abrupt manner." It said he should stay in Brazil because he has been living in the country for five years and would be stripped of his current family environment of "happiness, love and comprehension," the supreme court statement said.

The party also said the boy could suffer psychological damage because of the order to immediately put him in the care of his biological father, and that the outcome of the case reflected an interest in "prioritizing international relations over the fundamental rights of a Brazilian native" boy, the supreme court statement said.

Sergio Tostes, an attorney for the boy's Brazilian relatives, had filed a separate petition requesting a delay in the boy's handover to Goldman. He had criticized the judge's custody decision, received Tuesday, because it required immediate compliance.

There have been protests in Brazil urging authorities to allow the boy to remain with the Brazilian relatives he's lived with since he was 4.

Goldman has also developed an international support base, and protesters have rallied in support of him in the United States. The Web site bringseanhome.org celebrated news of the first judge's order granting him custody.

U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, was flying to Brazil Tuesday night to try to ensure that the previously ordered handover would go smoothly.

The case has received high-level attention. It took on international diplomatic overtones this spring when the U.S. Congress called on Brazil to permit the boy's return. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the same request and President Barack Obama discussed the matter with Silva when he visited Washington earlier this year.

Clinton brought up the subject Monday at a joint news conference in El Salvador with newly inaugurated Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes.

"It's taken a long time for this day to come, but we will work with the Goldman family and the Brazilian government with the goal of ensuring this young boy's return," she said.

*********************************************************************

what planet are we on???? the mother kidnapped the child, then she passed away. the father more than out ranks the step-dad. as long as the dad is a fit dad.....

even if he isn't...the step dad isn't blood relations

Unfortunately this isn't the first time a situation similiar to this has occured. IMO, the mother has passed, the father has tried for years to reclaim the boy. This shows his love an devotion to the child. Yes, the child has been in Brazil for 5 yrs. How many of those years has the father been fightin for the boy? The father has the right to have custody of his son, doesn't matter what country the father or the boy are from. Plain an simple the child belongs with his parent if that parent can provide for him an cares for him which he obviously does. Yes, the child will have some problems adjustin but I have no doubt that the father will provide for these issues an is well aware that they will exist.

i don't think they SHOULD automatically just return him.

if this child has been being raised for five years, over half of his life, by his step-dad...that's where he should stay. maybe work out an agreement for visitation and such, but he's IN a home, and loved.

and did his sibling live? the one his mother died bearing? how fair is it to take him away from him/her?

women don't that often just take off to another country before divorcing. was the father abusive? she didn't actually kidnap him since they WERE married at the time...

both of these fathers need to be evaluated, and the one that is the best emotionally for this child should be picked, keeping in mind that he needs to be with his sibling, as well.

this is a very complicated case. DNA is NOT the important issue here.

as sad as it is that the man had his child stolen from him

a true loving person would care more about the happiness of the child than his own hurt and suffering

if the boy wants to stay then he should stay

but hey

what do i know

lulu...good point. I don't know the history of it. I'm sure if there was someone on the dad the other side would use it against him.

my problem is the mom stole the child away from his dad. it's not like the dad just didn't care. he has been trying to get the child back. the child should be with his dad as long as the dad is a good, caring provider.

but why? why not be where has been for more than half his life? and where does HE want to be...his wishes should figure into this as well. and what about the baby?

after this many years, it's time to consider what is best for the kid, not just hand him over to dad BECAUSE he's dad.

i keep thinking that there had to be a reason for her taking off like that...

who knows the reason. it could be she didn't have custody and wanted it so she took it...could be for the man she remarried...who knows

but there should be a paper trail of the divorce and custoday here etc.

I hope though that the dad gets his child BUT takes him to still visit in Brazil and doesn't cut all ties with who the child knows

it says that they were married when she took off...so there wouldn't BE a custody order. it was supposed to be a vacation, but she divorced her husband while she was in brazil.

i hope that the child ends up wherever is best for him, be that here or in brazil. i'm leaning toward brazil.

good be she wanted another guy....who knows. the child has a right to know his dad and the paternal side of the family. but it would be a shame to cut the child off cold turkey if brought back here.

the mother stole the child for whatever reason. if it was for safety...I could see that. if it was just because she didn't want to be married or be with another man...that isn't fair to the dad or child.

i see your point, i'm just not all about "dad's rights". nor "mom's rights".

i'm more concerned that the child be in a stable environment with loving people around him. and i think it'd be an even bigger tragedy to take him away from his sibling.

lulu...it's a tough situation either way.