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

As I understood the article, the father was not in the states at the time because he did not emigrate - understandable, since he is not married to the mother of his daughter, but to someone else.

I'm not sure how quickly ICE would react to a phone call: "My daughter's mother in Florida is mentally ill; I need an emergency visa to come pick up my daughter. Um...Cuba, why do you ask?"

Again, without further information, I think we're assuming pretty crappy motives with no real reason for doing so. Family stories are complicated; add Cuban-American politics to it, and I'd guess this article is less than a quarter of the real story.

I never claimed that it was, Phil. I am merely stating what I read in the article that supported the claim that the father gave up custody rights. You seem to be basing your conclusion on something the article doesn't even address.

Both you and Philly Steve conveniently failed to consider the statement in the article that the father is going to court to "regain" his custody rights. Why is that? In Philly Steve's case, I can accept that it is an effort to color the case in entirely partisan shades. But what about you, Phil? Are you saying that the statement does not support the claim that the father gave up custody rights, or are you just ignoring the evidence?

It may be helpful to look at some other articles for further details. Here are a couple I read this morning:

Miami Herald: birth father fights to gain[/i] custody

In this article we learn that the father was in fact married to [i]another woman at the time he got the child's mother pregnant, and the mother was married to another man as well. This raises an interesting question: did he ever have custody of the child?

Guardian: fight over Cuban girl reaches FL court

In this story we learn that the father did not provide child support for the girl. We also learn that the foster parents formally adopted her older brother without asking permission of the birth father. What does that tell us about whether or not the father has any sort of custody rights in the eyes of the State of FL?

As I said before, this case looks bad for the birth parents. And I think it is a mistake to automatically side with them for reasons of partisanship, when it is the child's welfare that ought to be paramount.

It's enough for the Radical Right. In fact, for the Radical Right, the word "Cuba" is enough for the state to come in and take a child away from her parents.

He is likely trying to "regain" his parental rights from a "Unitary Executive" that has taken them away, in the name of winning Florida's electoral votes in 2008.

That does not change his parental rights. Or is the Radical Right "Nannay State" passing judgement here, again?

Steve, the older brother is an older HALF brother; he has a different father.

It tells us that the State of Florida can take your children away for any reason it deems politicaly advantageous.

Is that what Conservatives want?

The State of Florida is a national scandal in how it has managed the "protection" of children. But in this case, where a parent was available, Florida just had to step in, "for the child's own good".

This is just electoral pandering for Republican electgoral votes from the anti-Castro Florida vote in 2008. And everyone knows it. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for justifying the same "Nannay State" that they decry every (other) day in Democrats.

However we ARE talking about winning elections here. So Conservatives Principles become an oxymoron, again.


http://www.extralove.com/ash_related_media.html




http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/peril.html

The failure of child protection has become a national scandal. In Florida , the director of the Department of Children and Families resigned after months of institutional embarrassment initiated by a missing 5-year-old foster child who has yet to be located. Not only were Florida child welfare workers found derelict in their duties but three children have died under agency supervision during the past four months.

Eight years ago, what the Elian Gonzales case taught us is that the Feds have no scruples whatsoever about shoving a gun in the face of the custodian(s) or the state to get what they want. Was that what the left-leaners wanted? After all, it's not for us...it's for the children.

Why limit it to the Land of the Hanging Chad? I'd gladly wager several half-donuts that most state CPS have some major scandals attached to them. California, New York, Illinois? Nah! Couldn't be! Those are enlightened "blue" states where everyone has 1% body fat,speaks French, and loves everyone as they love themselves. :/

Texas - a "red" state - had an interesting case this last year involving a girl in her early teens who suffered from, IIRC, a non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The girl decided she did not want chemotherapy and her parents - still married to each other - supported her decision. The state - to no political advantage - threatened the parents with arrest, severed their parental rights and ordered the girl to receive treatment. She did. It did not seem to help her. The state has now lost interest and has restored the parents to their natural place in her life.

And when the Democrats pander for the votes of illegals in 2008, it will be done for only the most altruistic of motives, with absolutely no concern as to electoral objectives?

What Vince Lombardi (allegedly) said about football is equally applicable to the politics of either half of the bull in the china shop - winning is not the most important thing...it is the only thing!

...

Steve, there is a difference between "custody" and parental rights. To illustrate, when two parents divorce, one may get primary custody or even exclusive custody, but that does not terminate the parental rights of the other. Assuming for a moment that the parent with the right to custody is for some reason disabled, or even dies, the other parent has the presumptive right to custody, at least in American courts.

That is because the other parent retains the legal rights as a parent. Those rights are separate from custody rights. I am merely trying to provide some legal background, Steve, and am not arguing for or against anything, so please back off.

The articles do not explain the difference between custody and parental rights so I was doing so. Without understanding the difference the articles make a hodge podge of the issues involved and do not adequately explain the situation.

When a divorced parent who is not the primary custodian goes to court, they are described as trying to "regain custody." That does not mean they had no rights as a parent prior to that, only that they are seeking primary custody.

We do not know whether any formal order was ever entered regarding the child's custody to begin with, only that the father acceded to the mother's decision to emmigrate with the child to the US. I have tried to explain that if the situation involved moving from Florida to Kansas, there would be no real question of the father's right to custody on the mother's incapacity, absent a showing that the father was unable to care for the child or some other reason why the state had the right to place the child with another person.

There is usually a rather high barrier under state laws for the state to jump before it has the right to remove a child from the custody of a parent. I see no evidence in this case of a reason for such a placement away from the father.

It seems to me the only factor being presented is that he is in Cuba. It would be a political, not legal, basis for such a ruling and in my opinion a bad one, for it would open the door to all sorts of politically based child care decisions.

Could the court also decide that a child should not have to live in New orleans, or New York, or heaven forbid, West Hollywood because that court decided those were not good places to raise a child?

To me that is the central issue here.

Ah. Well that's interesting, Phil, but you can see where your first comment would lead a lay person like myself to think the two were interchangeable, since you seemed to be using them interchangeably. For myself, I never made any comment whatsoever about "parental" rights, Phil. Only about "custody rights". I didn't read anything into the article about "parental" rights because I didn't see where that was addressed in any of the articles I read.


Really? In the articles I've read, several other factors have been presented. I have referenced those other factors in this discussion. How did you miss them?