Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The "Right" kind or parents.

Does anyone here doubt for one minute that the Religious Right "Family Values" wing of the Republican Party won't push for the judge to take this child away from her parents and send her to "Acceptable" adoptive parents who are Politically Correct from a Conservative point of view? (And the rest of the Republican Party will keep thier mouths shut.)

I can't wait to watch Conservatives twist themselves in knots justifying this. Or, perhaps they won't, and just admit that a Conservative's sole motivation is hate: In this case hate for Fidel Castro, which trumps all other beliefs and therefor justifies siezing children and assigning them the "Right" parents.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/is-ano...70827145609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

MIAMI (Aug. 27) - A Cuban father allowed his young daughter to emigrate legally to the United States with her mother to find a better life. But months later, the mother has become incapable of caring for the girl and the father wants to take the child home.

It would seem a simple case, especially since the mother agrees her daughter should return to Cuba.

Yet on the eve of the trial, a judge has warned that it could "inflame the community," where the battle over Elian Gonzalez nearly eight years ago divided the city and became an international incident.

Testimony is to begin Monday over whether 32-year-old Cuban farmer Rafael Izquierdo can regain custody of his 4-year-old daughter -- whose name is being kept secret -- or whether she should remain with a wealthy Cuban-American and his wife who want to adopt her.

I think your question is a little unreasonable, Philly Steve. There is no doubt that the child has already been taken from one of her parents, and with the consent of the parent. The mother relinquished her custody of the child in December of 2005, according to the article.

That means that it is the father who seeks to take the child away from her foster parents, not some third party or parties seeking to take the child away from father or mother.

So once you get your facts straight, it may not be the opportunity for partisan hackery that you might have envisioned.

I personally don't care who gets tied into how many knots over the political implications of the case. My only concern would be for the welfare of the child, and there are strong arguments for her to stay with the foster parents.

Let's take a look at the facts.
A father gives custody of his daughter to his wife. The wife and daughter move to a different country. The mother becomes unable to raise her daughter and has her daughter put in a foster home. The child is placed with foster parents. After all this has happened the father decides he wants his daughter back. Now the courts have to decide where the child should live. This should have been determined by both the mother and father when the mother decided she was unable to raise her daughter.

Where is one so wise as Solomon when you really, really need him?

Perhaps I'm missing something in the article, but it looks to me as though

a) the mother was in no shape to make that kind of decision when the children went into foster care - they went into foster care because she was suicidal
b) there isn't any indication in the article that I can find, that said the father was available, in the US, when the children went into foster care, and
c) both birth parents want the child with her father.

I may be misreading your tone but I don't think this situation is as spur-of-the-moment as your comments make it sound.

Postscript (edit): I am not arguing a side on this question; I think there isn't nearly enough information in this article to justify doing so.

There is nothing in the article to support the claim, Steve, that the father gave up any custody rights. He is described as permitting the mother to take the child to the US. That is a far cry from giving up parental rights which I doubt he would do.

If he is still the parent of the child, a judge would have to determine that it would harm the child to return him to the father in Cuba. If we take the "Cuba" factor out of this conservatives would screem at the "nanny state" taking a child from its legitimate father. Imagine instead of Cuba this was the common scenario of one parent moving to another state. The remaining parent doesn't abandon rights as a parent by consenting to this.

We need to get over the fact that Castro is in charge of Cuba for now. We may not like it, they may even not like it, but our hatred has severely infected our political life severely for decades including getting Bush elected in 2000.

This case is a slam dunk in favor of the father but for politics. Of all places for politics to stay the hell out it is the family.

Well Phil, I'd suggest a more careful reading is in order. The father, according to the article, allowed his daughter to emigrate. I would say that alone supports the claim that he gave up custody rights, since he didn't emigrate with her. But beyond that, the article also states
Last time I checked, one does not "regain" something unless it has already been "lost". And as the Senator points out, where was the father when the mother was hospitalized after attempting suicide? I can hardly think of a more certain way for a mother to abandon responsibility for her child than by killing herself, can you?

But again, as I argued in the Elian Gonzalez case, it is the welfare of the child that should be paramount. She was an infant when she last saw her father. Is she unhappy where she is now? The political ramifications are indeed unfortunate, but as I have demonstrated, there are valid reasons for the child to stay with her foster parents.

I agree with Mellow Julia. We don't know enough about the circumstances to make a judgement. But I'd have to say, it doesn't look good for the birth parents, IMHO.

No, it does not. Any more than one constodial parent moving from one state to another means a surrender of custodial rights.

This is going to be all about Conservatives pandering to the anti-Castro Florida vote, again.

It will be absolute proof that Republicans are as much in favor of the Nanny state as they claim Democrats are, as long as they are the Nanny's.


Yes: Florida's electoral votes.

Maybe "adoption" of the "whole family" is a "better approach".

Steve, on this I am certain you are simply wrong. Allowing a child to emmigrate is not a surrender of parental rights. Only a court order accomplishes that. And I do mean only.