MountainSky Contents

Most Recent

Mr. Gonzalez's son, Elian, was rescued after a boat wreck in which his mother died. He has relatives in Florida who do not want the boy to go back to Cuba. The U.S. government, more specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is taking the side of relatives in Florida. The Cuban government is loudly calling for the boy to be returned to his father.

The ruckus surrounding this case tips us off that there's more involved than a simple custody dispute -- although that is very important in it's own right for Mr. Gonzalez and Elian. The United States and Cuban governments have not collided with such energy because both are deeply concerned about a single child and his father. It's worth examining what is at issue here: Should the government of the United States keep a child from his father because of where the father lives?

No evidence has been presented that Mr. Gonzalez is dangerous to the boy or that Elian's life would be at risk for some reason if he went back to Cuba. So why is the INS keeping control of the boy? Apparently because of where Mr. Gonzalez lives. The government is saying, in effect, "We know better than the father what is good for this child; the child has fallen into our power and we will prove that we can overrule the stated desire of the father." This is really what it comes down to. Who will decide when the welfare of a child appears to be at stake -- the child's parent(s) or the government?

Make no mistake about it, it is the arrogance of United States government bureaucrats and their will to prove that their authority stands above the authority of parents that has created this whole dispute with Cuba. To see this you only need ask this: What would have happened if the bureaucrats reflexively acknowledged that the authority of parents with respect to their children stands above the authority of government?  There's no doubt what would have happened. Elian would have been put on a plane to Havana as soon as he was strong enough to travel. His U.S. relatives would have been told politely that Elian's father wanted him back and that was that.

But the bureaucrats do not have a clear understanding that their right to intrude in families and to make decisions for families is severely limited. Clearly, the law should protect children against actual crime, such as violent attack by an abortionist conspiring with parents to kill a child, but a parent's place of residence -- Cuba or United States -- is not even close to being a criminal matter. It will create an interesting precedent if the U.S. government succeeds in keeping this child from his father because bureaucrats decide the father lives in a place that isn't so nice as southern Florida. The principle that U.S. officials can critique and annul parental decisions where no crime is involved could have considerable impact...

Will a government bureaucrat decide some day that the decision Mr. & Mrs. Jones have made to homeschool their children is not acceptable and order them to put their children into a government school?  When the Jones decide they'll leave the country rather than comply, will the bureaucrats seize their children at the airport?

You think this is absurd and couldn't happen, don't you? But you're seeing it happen now -- it's just that it's happening to Mr. Gonzalez and Elian, not to Mr. & Mrs. Jones and their children. Mr. Gonzalez has decided one thing, but the bureaucrats have decided something else and they are keeping Mr. Gonzalez' son from him. It's very simple.

Elian's relatives are saying that Mr. Gonzalez has been pressured by the Cuban government to ask for his son back. But aside from the fact that this is extremely dubious for reasons I won't develop right now, it is really beside the point. How Mr. Gonzalez has decided that he wants his son back, and what information he has taken into account in making his decision is irrelevant. He wants his son back. He has said so clearly. The bureaucrats must either submit to his authority as a parent or they must arrogate to themselves an authority, and come up with a justification for it, which is above the authority of a parent. We should be wary of this. There are people at work in the United States government who would love to establish in law the concept that government can override the decisions parents make for their children.

Peter Barry 12/27/1999

Please send someone a link to this page.