Captain's Quarters -

The idea that someone else gets to keep the child when her father wants her back and her mother agrees she should be with her father? I don't see anything controversial here at all. Take the politics out of it and the choice would seem clear. Hopefully this doesn't turn into another Elian with the "village" deciding it's got some say in the matter.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Captain's legal and moral assessment that the child should go back to her father's family in Cuba. The foster family doen't have a leg to stand on in this case.

ConChem

Is anyone checking to find out why the mother left the father in the first place? Why didn't they leave Cuba together? Finances aside, is he a fit father? Did he give his consent for the mother to leave with the child in the first place? Is unseen pressure being brought to bear on either parent?
How about the Cuban government surprising everyone by allowing the father to emigrate, if they believe the child's welfare is worth anything.
Last but not least, is there any hope that the child's opinion and wishes will count for anything?

Anyone who has ever been involved in a child custody case knows that there is rarely, if ever, a simple, uncomplicated solution that satisfies everyone. All too often, despite the best of intentions, the outcome hurts everyone.

On the bright side, this should give us a break from the unfit mom BS bs for a little while.

One can be thankful that the Bush Administration will not resort to draconian Clinton-era tactics.

Who can forget when Clinton and Janet Reno's storm troopers burst into Elian's aunt's house to confiscate the terrified child at gunpoint?

Hey leftists, take another look at that picture. That's you. That's the democrat party in action.

Pretty ugly.

Interesting timing...
It has been said (By Dave Barry, who is married to a woman of Cuban decent) that there is a very real possibility that the Elian fiasco was what won Florida for Bush. The dem's had so infuriated the cuban immigrant community that rather than voting democrat as they normally do a great many of them switched parties.
That could especially hurt Hillary since it was her husband's administration that was responsible the first time around and I doubt that's been forgotten but having a republican admin involved in a similar scuffle could relieve a bit of that anger at her and the rest of the democrats.
This will be one to watch.

Concur, CE.

Reminds one of how quickly the Dhimmis cry "Chickenhawk" when military force is used against a tyrant...but when the Dhimmis are in power, it's ok to use military force against U.S. citizens (Elian, Ruby Ridge, Waco etc).

Much easier to be a Chickenhawk against unarmed civilians.

Concur, CE.

Reminds one of how quickly the Dhimmis cry "Chickenhawk" when military force is used against a tyrant...but when the Dhimmis are in power, it's ok to use military force against U.S. citizens (Elian, Ruby Ridge, Waco etc).

Much easier to be a Chickenhawk against unarmed civilians.

Is anyone checking to find out why the mother left the father in the first place? Why didn't they leave Cuba together? Finances aside, is he a fit father? Did he give his consent for the mother to leave with the child in the first place? Is unseen pressure being brought to bear on either parent?
How about the Cuban government surprising everyone by allowing the father to emigrate, if they believe the child's welfare is worth anything.
Last but not least, is there any hope that the child's opinion and wishes will count for anything?

Anyone who has ever been involved in a child custody case knows that there is rarely, if ever, a simple, uncomplicated solution that satisfies everyone. All too often, despite the best of intentions, the outcome hurts everyone.

On the bright side, this should give us a break from the unfit mom BS bs for a little while.

I flatly disagree with the Captain's assessment. Parental rights are not the fundamental issue in play here, just as they were not in the Elian case. No parent should have a right to take a minor into a dictatorship where no rights are recognized. I would classify that as a form of child abuse, and yes I would apply the same principle to myself and my own family.

You cannot simply "take the politics out of it" -- the politics are an integral part of the situation.

Kyle Haight,

Can you say... slippery slope?

Hey Swabjocky, the Dhimmis weren't in power during Ruby Ridge. Bush 41 was. However, they were in power during the ATF/FBI coverup.

I'd rather have the parents be making the decision on the future of their children than any government.

This story has been the talk of South Florida bloggers, liberal and conservative since the Miami Herald first reported this custody case last March. The non-Florida MSM is Johnny come lately. I would have thought this would make the wire services months ago.

Bottom line- If the mother is incompetent or unable to care for her daughter, the father gets the child. End of story.

Children are not property of the parent, to do with whatever the parent wants. Children too have rights and interests, even though they may conflict with the parent's prerogative. Consequently, the child is entitled to a guardian ad litem to represent those rights and interests.

The standard to be applied here is the same standard as in any other child custody case -- what is in the "best interests of the child"? If it would be in the best interests of the child to remain here, and it would be harmful to the child's interests to be taken back to an oppressive Communist dictatorship, considering especially the PR puppet that Elian was turned into by Fidel upon his forced return, then the child should remain here.

You would think if both parents were in agreement, that would be that, but things are never that simple in Cuban-American politics. If the courts order the child back to the father, and Cubas doesn't give the child up, I see a complete grandstanding sideshow repeat, complete with the police forcibly taking the child (at that point, what else can they do?). That Cubas is certainly not shy or afraid of the spotlight makes it more likely. Hopefully this time it won't get to police enforcement, there will be no "fisherman" in the closet, and there will be no shrines declaring the "miracle child" to be the next Jesus.

Checksum. Thanks. You’re right. I was thinking about the Reno coverup.

Bender and Kyle. I always get a chuckle when my wife talks about "animal rights". What “rights” does my dog really have? I can't help thinking of Fido in the voting booth pulling the Hildabeast's handle. Does he have the “right” to not be owned like property? Is he not “my” dog?

Does the kid have the Bill of Rights? Freedom of speech? Freedom to assemble (NAMBLA will agree with this one)? Can the kid vote? Who's going to say what "rights" the kid has? Especially when you're talking about "the state" inventing a "right" that will forcefully take the kid away from both parents.

It is indeed a slippery slope.

This is an easy case under the law. Respect the rights of the parents to determine what is best for their child.

How Roverian the plot. The timing is Shakespearian, no Kafkian. What the heck! Stalinist! The State owns the child, no that's Cuban Stalinism. Imagine taking this kid and giving it that old fashion materialism, all the toys, all the fast food, all the sharp shoes, you think that kid is not going to have a tantrum on Fox! Does it mean that pedis have the same rights to materialize a child?

It's freaking sick!

Swabjockey -- All persons are equal, both under the law and as a matter of their creation. Children have the same rights as any other person, just as a mentally incapacitated adult has the same rights as anyone else. The only difference is that, because of their limited capacity, those rights are held in trust by the lawful custodian of that child, usually the biological parent. The rights of the parent are not property rights, they are the rights of a trustee, who holds the rights and interests of the beneficiary for the benefit of the beneficiary and not for the benefit of the trustee.

Kyle Haight:
"...where no rights are recognized..."

The most widely accepted Human Rights treaty in the world is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Cuba has signed and ratified this treaty, along with every other UN member nation except for two: the United States and Somalia. If you are worried about human rights, send him back to Cuba. At least he will get free health care.

How Roverian the plot. The timing is Shakespearian, no Kafkian. What the heck! Stalinist! The State owns the child, no that's Cuban Stalinism. Imagine taking this kid and giving it that old fashion materialism, all the toys, all the fast food, all the sharp shoes, you think that kid is not going to have a tantrum on Fox! Does it mean that pedis have the same rights to materialize a child?

It's freaking sick!

1. If the mother was suicidal two years ago, why assume her mental health is such she can make good choices for her daughter today?

2. Given the history of Castro's government, why assume that the father (and mother, if she still has relatives living in Cuba) are not under duress?

In this case, Bender's right - the child needs a guardian. And I agree with Kyle: Taking a child into a dictatorship is a form of child abuse.

I seem to be a contrarian as I believe that Elian should have been returned to his father and that I do not believe it is clear cut that the child in this case should be returned to Cuba.

In the case of Elian, he was taken without the father's permission or even knowledge of the dangerous trek to the US in which the mother died. He at no time did he give up his parental rights to Elian.

In this case, the father essentially gave up his rights when he allowed the child to emigrate to the US where he had to assume that he would never see him again unless he also planned an attempt to come to the US or that Cuba would eventually be free. Also, his mother is still alive and I assume will remain in the US. Sending the child to Cuba will prevent the child from ever seeing her mother again if she so choses when she is of age to make that decision.

Rbj -- As has been noted, children have rights just as adults do. They aren't competent to exercise those rights due to their age, which is why they have guardians. But should those guardians violate the child's rights, the government must and should intervene. Protecting rights is the function of government, after all. If two parents decide that they want to lock their kid in a closet and feed him dogfood, to make up an extreme example, then I damn well do want the government to intervene and I think any sane adult would agree.

The fundamental point I want to hammer home is that parental rights are not absolute and unconditional. Parents can do things that should lead to their loss of guardianship. Now, one can argue that making one's child emigrate to a dictatorship shouldn't be considered one of those things -- I would disagree, but one could make the argument. But the argument must be made; the issue should not be swept aside by a glib appeal to the rights of the parents while ignoring the rights and interests of the child.

With respect to Swabjockey's "who decides" comment, I can only note that I do not think questions of rights are a matter of opinion or social convention. The situation exists, and supporting either side constitutes a decision about what rights are in play. The slippery slope card cuts both ways. Parental rights trump the child's rights in this instance? What about other instances? Where's the line on what parents are allowed to do to their children?

Kyle Haight:
One of the main reason the US would not ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child is because the treaty endorsed a child's right to "Health Services". Of course, the US was against this, because they might then have to give health care for free to some children, and that would cut into profits. It's much more profitable to let children without money be sick or die.
The child will have free health care and guaranteed housing in Cuba (the US also has no problem with homeless children). Of course, he will not have access to unlimited cheap toys made in China. I guess there are tradeoffs.

Kyle, so you'd be ok with taking kids away from parents when they teach them that according to the Bible homosexuality is wrong?

Kids do not have all the rights of adults -- voting, for one. Or marriage.

I can see taking kids away if you're teaching them to break the law (such as stealing) and of course in abuse situations. But do you take Randy Weaver's kids away simply because he's a white separatist?

No thought here at all. The child belongs with its parents, unless those parents can be proven to both be incapable of properly caring for the child.

If the father loves the child and can take care of her, why give her to strangers?

This reminds me of one incident which I as a Catholic am ashamed -- Edgardo Mortara Edgardo's story has definite parallels here, and I think keeping the child from her parent would be the equivalent to what the Catholic Church did to Edgardo's parents.

Mind you, the authorities in both cases had the child's best interests at heart.

When siblings are put up for adoption, they are often separated. Anyone in the readership who can speak to this issue?

My wife has some kooky friends who believe that Catholicism is a "cult"...and that allowing parents to force their kids into the cult is some kind of "child abuse". I'm sure dave the commie shyster would agree...since children really are the "property" of the state.

swabjockey05,

The main characteristic of a cult is that some teachings and ceremonies whose form (rituals) and content (writings) are secret. If you have to join to find out the "secrets", it's a cult.

For example, Scientology is a cult, because you have to pay money and spend long hours of instruction at one "level" before you can move to the next and be introduced to the (secret) teachings of that next "level". There is no book that tells you what all the levels are. Tom Cruise is only a Level 7 -- he has not yet been introduced to Level 8 (the level of final enlightenment for Scientologists). Tom Cruise does not know what's at Level 8, because

Contrast that with the Catholic Church, whose teachings are available for anyone who cares to read a Bible; what the Church teaches as tradition beside Scripture is also available from any number of resources (encyclicals and the Catechism are available on the vatican.va website). What the Church does in ceremonies is associated with seven listed and described Sacraments (gifts of God). All such Ceremonies (except private Reconciliation/Confession, whose form IS publicly described; note that public Reconciliation/Confession, using the identical ceremeony, is available) are completely open even to non-Christians. There are no hidden rituals -- they are all out in the open.

And dave,

Have Sudan and Botswana ratified this treaty? Just asking.

Dave wrote:

"The child will have free health care and guaranteed housing in Cuba (the US also has no problem with homeless children)."

Since I agree that the child should be returned to her father, I'm not really trying to pick a fight with you. But I think "free" health care in Cuba doesn't necessarily mean quality health care and "guaranteed" housing doesn't necessarily mean it's habitable.

And it's unfair to state that the we don't care about homeless children in this country. There are many programs, some government funded, some undertaken by private charities, that attempt to find housing and provide education to homeless children with an emphasis on trying to keep the family unit intact.

Having lived in large cities my entire adult life, and typically close to the main city center, I have not seen a lot of homeless kids roaming the streets, at least not under the age of 14-15. Teenage runaways are of course a problem in many large cities and they often end up on the street but that's a different issue.

Bennet:
“…’free’ health care in Cuba doesn't necessarily mean quality health care…”

It is quality health care. Cuba’s health care system is rated virtually the same as in the US by the WHO, and both infant mortality rates and life expectancy are nearly equal in Cuba and the US, all at a cost of about 5% of what the US spends. There are trade-offs, of course. If you have the money and get cancer, for instance, you will have access to medicines that you would not have access to in Cuba. These medicines, however, usually come at great cost and do little for actually increasing lifespan, especially healthy lifespan. In Cuba, however, the people at the other end of the economic ladder have access to much better medical care than in the US. IMO, the top 20% in the US have better health care than in Cuba, the middle 60% the same, and the bottom 20% are much better off in Cuba.

“…housing doesn't necessarily mean it's habitable.”

I don’t know what you mean by this. If you mean does it have 2,000 square feet and 2.5 baths, you are right, they don’t have that. Housing has running water, toilets, etc. What is necessary.

Swab:
“Have Sudan and Botswana ratified this treaty?”

Did you know you can look this stuff up in 30 seconds? yes

Dave: as I understand it, the health care system in Cuba is two-tiered, one for the elites and another for the regular people. In the latter, the resources are scarce, bedding, medicine, even available doctors as Castro has traded doctors for oil from Venezuela.

As I also understand it, because Cuba has limited resources it focuses on prevention not treatment and cure. This is certainly not to be criticized, the US should also focus more on prevention. But in Cuba there is no choice. It simply doesn't have the resources to undertake complicated treatment regimens.

You might dismiss such treatments as not leading to continued quality of life but I suspect you would feel differently if and when you are faced with a choice between no treatment leading to death and treatment leading to continued life, albeit of diminished quality.

Your premise seems to be that treating difficult, complicated illnesses isn't worth the prize and, as a result, Cuba loses nothing in choosing to ignore them. While an allocation of resources is understandable, and happens here as well, I don't know that you can fairly argue Cuba's allocation is based on better decision making about what's worth treating and what isn't.

I am not a statistician and can't comment fairly on WHO information in re comparable infant mortality and life expectancy. I suspect, however, that someone more qualified than I could opine that accurate comparisons between a homogeneous population of 11 Million and a more complex, heterogeneous population of 300 Million would necessarily have to include certain factors that the WHO study left out. I don't know this and it's not my area of expertise (massive understatement).

As to housing, I don't really get your point. Certainly a house doesn't have to be large and well appointed to be habitable and there are plenty of slums in this country. But your point seemed to be that what mattered was that the housing was guaranteed and not that this guarantee necessarily included a particularly decent place to live. I don't think Cuba guarantees that. And of course neither do we.

It just seemed to me that you think the child should be returned to Cuba because she could get medical care and housing for free. In your original comment you didn't include any indication that you believed not only were they free but you felt they were of higher quality. Instead, you seem to concede that at best they are of similar quality to what she could receive here in the US (keeping in mind that the people who want to adopt her are wealthy).

Would your position then be the same if her father lived in Japan where this would not be true? That is, neither housing nor health care there is free or guaranteed.

Sorry for the long answer, just thought the issue was interesting (maybe only to me and possibly to you if no one else!).

Bennett:
Here’s a quote from PR Newswire US from June 28, 2007, which addresses a few thing you bring up, including shortages and doctor patient ratio:

“In a December 2006 Gallup Poll, 96% of Cubans said they have regular access to health care, no matter what their income level. Despite its limited economic resources, Cuba's infant mortality rate, life expectancy and other health indicators are comparable to those in the United States, yet the per-person expenditure is only about $230 (compared to over $6,000 in the U.S.). Cuba has also been a world leader in the development of new vaccines, including one for meningitis, which are not available to patients in the United States because of the U.S. embargo against Cuba. Despite shortages and hospitals in need of refurbishing, the strength of Cuba's health care system lies in its workforce. The country has more than 70,000 doctors, 20,000 of them serving in poor communities abroad (mostly elsewhere in Latin America and in Africa). The 50,000 working at home still give Cuba the best patient-doctor ratio in Latin America, nearly twice that of the U.S. Cuba's Latin American Medical School provides full scholarships to over 10,000 low-income students from around the world (including the U.S.) who make a commitment to work in under-served communities in their own countries when they graduate.”

As for the two-tiered thing, I did a quick search and could not find evidence for it. If you can, I’d like to see it (by evidence, I mean something not written by CANF). Of course I would expect the elite in Cuba to have access to the best doctors, but I didn’t find any real evidence of a strict two tiered system.

“As I also understand it, because Cuba has limited resources it focuses on prevention not treatment and cure… I don't know that you can fairly argue Cuba's allocation is based on better decision making about what's worth treating and what isn't.”

Prevention is is what makes the real difference, and concentrating on it is the right thing to do. It is what is done in Europe as well. A while back the Captain had a thread claiming that the US system is better than Cuba’s because we have access to drugs like Avastin, which is used for colorectal cancer. But when you look at the cost of this drug and compare what could be done with the same money if it was used for something like screening, the difference is clear. The yearly cost of Avastin is $55,000. Cost to benefit ratios are usually looked at in terms of dollars per life-year gained. Let’s say the average colon cancer patient receives treatment for 5 years (The survival rate is at least that long). Let's be very conservative and say that the patient receives Avastin for only 2 years. The cost will still be $110,000, and life span will be increased by 5 months, on average. This works out to $264,000 for every life year gained. This is insanely high. To compare, screening the population for colorectal cancer using a fecal occult blood test every 5 years costs $55,600 for every life year saved. Even better results were reported a couple months ago in the journal “Cancer”. Optical colonoscopy screening costs $9,180 per life-year saved, while virtual colonoscopy costs $4,361 per life year saved. Screening saves lives. Drugs like Avastin are for making pharmaceutical companies rich (I am a pharmaceutical chemist). On top of this, look at where the benefits go. An Avastin patient gets 5 months added at the end of his life, time that is probably not the best of that person’s life. On the other hand, saving a life by screening and stopping a cancer before it starts can dramatically change a person’s life. It can give a person 20 or more healthy years! Screening, however, does not make the pharmaceutical companies nearly as much money, so it is not done nearly as much as it should be. The fact that the US spends 20 times as much money as Cuba with no statistical difference in health outcomes makes it clear that the US system is about money. 18,000 people die in the US ever year because they don’t have insurance. A society that allows this to happen, especially considering the money that the US has, is morally bankrupt.

“It simply doesn't have the resources to undertake complicated treatment regimens.”
Cuba doesn’t have expensive pharmaceuticals, but they can do nearly any procedure that the US does. They do transplants, etc.

About the WHO study: I also don’t know the details of the study or the exact parameters that were used. I do think that the people at the WHO probably know about whatever issues you and I can think of, plus more. If they rank two countries nearly equal, it is unreasonable to say that, in reality, that one is really far superior to the other, based on nothing. I think their rankings have some validity.

Cuba does guarantee housing. I don’t know what you mean by “particularly decent”. You or I probably wouldn’t like much of it. But if it has running water, a toilet, and electricity, I think it is fine. If I lived in the Caribbean, I’d be outside most of the time anyway. My point is that this situation is far superior than the wealthiest nation in the world having 100,000 children sleeping in the street every night. This, again, is morally bankrupt. Having a poor society where all people have housing, even very basic housing, is not.

“It just seemed to me that you think the child should be returned to Cuba because she could get medical care and housing for free.”

I think the child should be returned to Cuba because his mother cannot care for him, and his father is in Cuba. The thought process takes less time than typing the sentence. The only reason some people need to use tortured logic to go beyond that is due to an irrational hatred of Castro. Somehow not returning this child will somehow punish Castro, I guess. My reason for bringing up health care and housing is mainly to make my usual spiels. But I do believe personally that the boy would be better off in Cuba. For the reasons I mentioned and for the benefits of living in a collective society. A society that cares about each other. Castro has elaborate evacuation procedures for hurricanes, for example. Millions of people are moved when hurricanes come (along with pets and some possessions as well). As a result, when category 4 or 5 hurricanes hit, nearly nobody dies. Compare this reaction to Katrina.

Here's the article I read on the two tiered system (although I have to say I don't think there are supposed to be any tiers in a Communist country).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414097/

I think the child should go back to Cuba because I believe families should be together as much as possible regardless of where they live or how well they live. I certainly don't think the courts of this country should be used to deprive a foreign parent of rights we would grant a parent residing here.

Where I have a harder time with this principle is in situations where I think the child will be subject to abuse (for example, in some Muslim countries female genital mutilation, aka female circumcision, is commonly practiced. Since I consider that practice so repugnant as to be beyond expression, it would be difficult for me to endorse returning a female child to a country where that might occur.)

In other countries, female and some male children are routinely sold (Indonesia, Thailand for example) when the parents find it convenient to do so. It would be hard for me to sanction returning a child to that sort of environment.

dave,

Before you go getting all huffed up about how good the health care is in Cuba, consider a few facts.

Didn't Mr. Moore insist that his guys get treated with the natives rather than on the "special floor"? Do you think the Cubans actually followed Moore's advice -- oh, and how about that "special floor" anyway?

And you gotta love Castro -- he had a special team of doctors flown in from Spain to do his surgery -- none of those Cubans whizzes for him...

And, maybe Castro's politburo has something to do with Cuba's high numbers...

Finally, the number of practicing doctors in Cuba is falling -- for the second time -- due to socialism. The first time was when Castro nationalized the healthcare system; Cuba lost 1/3 of its physicians. Cuba is now losing physicians at a very rapid rate, because doctors can earn more money in the tourism industry than by being a doctor.

If you wonder why America's scores aren't higher, take a look at Mexico's - and then tell me what you think the illegals are doing to our numbers.
From that standpoint, our numbers are quite good. I have yet to meet a person who lost a baby (other than someone who had an abortion they now regret) -- the only infant mortality I read about are college kids leaving them in dumpsters and doctors sucking their brains out over at Planned Parenthood).

And, if you want the really best life expectancy, you can always go live in Andorra -- which has a completely privitized healthcare system. And if you don't want your newborn to die, you can go live in Singapore, which also has a completely privatized healthcare system.

Propaganda sure fails when faced with truth.

edncda | August 27, 2007 9:46 AM

Interesting questions. Read the article.

Shyster, for a "clever" shyster you don't pay much attention to detail. I didn't ask you squat about Sudan or Botswana. But in case you haven't noticed both places are real shitholes. I'm sure they have plenty of "rights" for their citizens. Just like your beloved Cuba.

Unclesmrgol. Didn't need the lecture (I was an alter boy for 3 years). Just trying to make the slippery slope point.

Bennett:
Yes, I saw the same article when I did my search. The people cited are “some critics” and a Cuban American from Miami. Maybe it’s true, but I am going to need more than that to change my mind. I have read many comprehensive studies from NGO’s, human rights organizations, etc., and no mention was made of this.
I agree that you would not want to send a child into a country where it is almost certain that something like female genital mutilation will occur. But there are few countries where such a practice is widespread. It ends up being a case by case basis. Do you send a child to a country where 20% of women are mutilated, if the parents in question do not practice it? BTW, the practice predates Islam, is not taught in the Koran, and is practiced by other religions.

Unclesmrgol:
I'll address this since you quoted a paper.
“Finally, the number of practicing doctors in Cuba is falling -- for the second time -- due to socialism.”

Here are the values in your reference for the number of doctors in Cuba per 10,000 people at varies times:

1958: 9.2
1962: 5.4 (due to the exodus of doctors immediately after the revolution)
1975: 10.0
1990: 36.1
1999: 58.2

So since the revolution, the doctor patient ratio has improved dramatically, “due to socialism”.

These numbers put Cuba’s rank in Latin America for doctor patient ratio at number 1 in both 1980 and 2000. Number one is not bad.

For comparison, the ratio in California is 30 (I could not find data for the US quickly):
www.hsi.ucr.edu/doctorhouse.pdf

So the ratio in Cuba is twice that in the US, exactly what the article I quoted said. I am not sure what you want me to read into your report. It says “the number of physicians is sure to diminish” because of a declining graduation rate, even though it also say that “to date, the decline in graduates has not affected the number of doctors”. When this predicted event does happen, and the ratio declines by half to equal that of the US, let me know.

I was never convinced that Elian's father was free of coercion. In fact, I felt that it was more likely than not that he WAS being coerced.

Same question applies here. If they can prove that no coercion's occuring, then send the kid to Cuba. If there is any question about coercion, then she stays here.

If you have to join to find out the "secrets", it's a cult.

The word is "esoteric religion". Cult is a deg

If there is any question about coercion, then she stays here.

Any Question? LOL! What a weasely way of saying "I want an excuse to use unsubstantiated allegations to do what I want without looking like I'm being a jingoistic prick who will take children from their parents just because I dont like Castro".

As far as I know, someone has a gun to your head and is making you say this.

I guess we don't have to listen to you either.

Dave is dead-on right in his conclusion that the child should be returned to his Dad. I have no use for the Castro regime, or for communism, but, in this case, the child is being made a political pawn. If wealth and material things were more important than good family upbringing why didn't the Hilton or Lohan kids turn out better?

The reality is that children need to be with their loving parents, regardless of the political system or how much money there is is the bank.

Obviously, this father made a huge sacrifice for the child's best interest...allowed him to go to a place where he would likely never see the child again. Now the mother has made a similar decision, again for the child's best interest.

the rest of us...media included..ought to keep our noses out.