Since I’m divorced and my three children live with my ex-wife,
understanding a few of the complex issues involved in the Elian
Gonzales case is a little easier for me.
For many people in America, six-year-old Elian should have been
allowed to remain in America. They were saddened to learn that the
boy may be forced, as they termed it, to return to the communist
country of Cuba after such a daring escape.
As we look at the current events in this case, put aside the
politics of the matter, including the facts that Cuba is the
communist and that Fidel Castro, a despised enemy of the U.S., has
been in control of the island nation for the past 41 years.
The fact that many in the Cuban community in America wanted people
to remember was that the boy’s mother, her boyfriend, and nine other
people died in their vain attempt to make a 90-mile journey to
America, break into America illegally, seeking the promise of
comfort, a better life, and freedom here in the United States.
Little Elian Gonzalez was scooped from the chilly waters of the
Atlantic last November by two fishermen. Elian was the lucky one in
the group, or so Americans thought when he was first rescued.
Unlucky was his father, we, as a nation, thought, who was still in
Cuba. Unluckier yet, sadly enough, was his mother and her boyfriend,
along with nine other Cuban escapees, who drowned in the Atlantic.
The group was on a 90-mile ocean trek, attempting to flee Cuba for
the promise of comfort, a better life, and freedom here in the
United States.
Once he was rescued last Thanksgiving Day by two fishermen off the
coast of Florida, clinging to an inner-tune, Elian seized Americans'
attention.
Seven months later, however, still holding the attention of many
Americans, Elian was allowed to return with his father, to Cuba.
While many people here in America - in the Cuban community and
elsewhere - argued the boy should be allowed to remain here because
his mother died in her efforts to escape Cuba, another issue is
being dismissed.
If Elian had been born in America and his parents divorced, he would
probably have been living with his mother. Unless his mother would
have given up her custodial rights, she probably would have been
granted custody of the boy because that’s par in divorce court, and
this is where I’m stopping. This column is not an expository on the
state of divorce court, but on the state of one boy’s fate.
His mother, having custody of the boy, would have been allowed to
move around the country at will. There are no restrictions on free
movement here in the U.S.
Looking at an example, here’s the scenario for a U.S. family. Elian
and his mother are moving from Miami to New Ulm, Minnesota. She
accepted a job in a large food manufacturing group. During that move
to Minnesota, however, she’s involved in a fatal car accident.
During the extrication, the fire department is able to extricate
Elian from the car unscratched.
Word of the accident makes it onto the local news. The national news
decides to run the story, as well. It’s a great story for the boy,
as he is the survivor of a horrific accident. Family members living
about 50 miles away, hear about the accident and rush to where the accident took place.
They are given custody of the boy upon their arrival, despite never
having seen him. They last saw his mother 12 years ago.
The boy’s father, living in California, calls on the local officials
a week later, having heard about the accident through a network of
friends who recognized the boy’s name. He is told the boy is being
taken care of and is in good hands with relatives.
When the father arrives for his son, the family members who rushed
50 miles say they aren’t going to give the kid to the father. Seems
they have a grudge against people living in California. They
immediately hire an attorney and begin court proceedings, hoping to
gain custody of the child. The only reason they give for wanting to
strip the father of his rights is that he lives in an “undesirable,
polluted area of the United States.”
Sure, it’s not likely to be successful in any court, and any
attorney would tell you that. But there are a lot of attorneys who
will accept any case - especially one involving a court battle -
because they see the dollar signs starting to add up in their mind’s
eye. Another thing that may enter some of their minds would be the
reputation they could earn if they are successful in the case.
As the courts reject the petition to strip the father of his rights
and grant custody to the uncle, a California court issues an order
that the child be returned to his father immediately. The family
ignores the order, laughing and ridiculing the court, saying they
still have a petition, and the father can visit the child - under
their supervision, if he wants. The family also calls a friend who
does some photography work for the local newspaper. They want him to
stay at the house for a week or so - just in case something goes
down.
The local sheriff’s department is served with a copy of the
California court order. They gather a team of deputies and serve the
court order, nabbing the kid in the process, as ordered. The family
friend takes a terrific, yet horrifying picture of sheriff’s
deputies executing the order. The picture shows the deputies armed
with M16A2 rifles, 9mm handguns, and some with protective shields.
All the deputies are wearing black combat fatigues, helmets, and
look as if they are ready to kill.
The picture is printed on the front page of that day’s newspaper.
The local newspaper also sends the photo across the national wire,
allowing other papers across the country to run the photo in their
papers. Controversy over the “use of force” by the local sheriff’s
department ensues. Argument over the California’s court order being
used in a different state begins. Both issues eventually fade to
black as the family continues fighting.
Local and state appeal court decisions all say the same thing: if
the father is still alive, he is granted custody of his children.
The family appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s high
court accepts the case, but when the ruling comes down, it’s
basically a reiteration of the lower courts: All prior decisions in
this case have been handled properly and without bias. The child
goes to the father.
Sure, I’m not an attorney. I did consult with a few attorneys on the
facts of such a case. They all got a great laugh at the scenario.
They all agreed that the case would be ridiculous. They all agreed
the family would probably be laughed out of court. They all agreed
the father should have and would be granted full custody. They all
got quiet when asked why these same rules weren’t applied to the
Elian case.
So it was with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the
appeal of Elian’s family. The decision was just, fair, and unbiased.
Had the child and the family been American, the saga would have come
to a conclusion much sooner. Because the boy was Cuban and the
family in Miami had fled Cuba sometime in the past, they wanted to
make an issue of the boy. They wanted to use him as their poster
child - and they almost got away with it.
Being a father, as well as a former soldier, I closely watched this
case. As a father, sure, I wanted father and son to be reunited. As
a former soldier, the thought of the kid being returned to Cuba
sickened me, but you know what? This wasn’t a case about politics.
It was about family. The father was Cuban. The mother was Cuban. The
boy is Cuban. If the mother wanted to risk her life for liberty, so
be it. Had she come to the U.S. in a legal manner, she may still be
alive. Had she attempted to come to the U.S., she would likely have
Elian at her side. Had she tried to come here in a legal fashion,
Americans would probably never heard of a six-year-old named
Elian.
There are many facets in this case that could be argued. What it
comes down to, however, is that the boy has been reunited with his
father. That’s the way it should be. Don’t look for a martyr in a
little kid. Martyrdom is best left to adults who may fully
understand an issue, although many times they are just plain
ignorant.
It was 5 p.m. on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, when I heard the 5 p.m.
radio news announcing that Elian and his father were airborne,
heading back to Cuba. I was driving around in Philadelphia with my
children. We were on a mission to buy a few board games and jigsaw
puzzles.
As I prepared this column about 18 hours after Elian landed in Cuba,
as two of my children sit in the living room watching television, I
wonder how long it will be before this poor child’s name is
forgotten. Before people stop citing how much money the U.S. Justice
Department spent fighting the Miami family’s attempts to strong-arm
the U.S. government and the family’s efforts to derail family
values, morals, and one family, in particular. Yes, the money spent
buy the Justice Department could have been better spent on other
cases, but it wasn’t a fight the Justice Department picked. It was a
fight they had to fight. It was only right to free Elian Gonzalez
from the criminal captivity imposed by his Miami family.
|
"Elian
and Father Head Home"
