I may be incorrect, but I believe that is the court in Miami, is it not?
As for the finding being in compliance with the treaty which you cite, it is quite contradictory to previous similar (though not exactly similar) case decisions. Children have been returned to the surviving parent in countries such as Lebanon, Pakistan, Jordan and (in one case that I remember fairly vividly about 10-15 years ago) Iran.
I don't see this as a litmus test at all, and I find it disingenuous, hypocritical and laughable that the very people who have fought the UN resolution are the ones supporting it now.
As a parent, I can say that based on my feelings alone, I would be upset if any country felt it was within its rights to decide where my child could live without my say, and placing my uncle's right's of guardianship over mine. A child lacks certain cognitive capabilities at Elian's age, which is why the concept of guardianship is in existence to begin with. To say Elian (or his US "guardians")has rights as a plaintiff (which will undoubtedly be found to be non-existent as the hearing progresses) is simply not true.
There is quite a bit of political nonsense occurring there at this time. It is likely that the finding of the court is going to be overturned.
I doubt it has little import.
Am I lawyer? No, but I play one on TV. Actually, I was studying to be one....but changed my mind in grad school to economics. |
