Elian Gonzales

Fri Jan 7 09:35:29 MST 2000

Instead of a mother leaving with the child because she didn't
agree with the father's religious beliefs; how about this.

A womand and her husband divorce.  Their child lives with his
mother because dad really didn't want to deal with the child.
The mother decides to move because if she stayed; her child
would live in poverty, would go hungry, and would not have
opportunity to improve his life when he became and adult.  On
the way to their new home, the mother dies and the child ends up
staying with relatives.  Suddenly the father turns up claiming
that he wants his child back.  The father had shown little or no
interest in the child before he and his mother moved away.
Turns out the only reason the father spoke up was because some
politician had a scheme to make himself look good and was using
the father and the little boy as pawns to this end.  Left alone
the father would have said nothing, but only spoke up because of
pressure from the politicians.

If Mr. Gonzales wants his son back: let him come to the U.S. and
claim him.

It just bugs me that in far too many custody disputes the courts
look at who has rights to the child, who owns the child rather
than what's in the best interests of the child.

Here's something else that happens far too often.  A couple
divorces.  The father has the means and the desire to raise his
children.  The woman is on welfare, has a drug problem, and is
sleeping with her boyfriend of the week.  When the custody
hearing is held, all this information is made known to the
judge.  The judge then decides the child should be with his
mother and gives her custody even though the father would be the
better parent.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list