Yes, we do disagree, (but at least we are disagreeing politely). This may seem on the surface to be an emotional reaction, but I don't think it is as it's based on my education and training as a family service worker and my years as a parent.
That others believed they had the right to keep a young son from seeing his father until he met "their" rules for the meeting, was pure arrogance. It totally ignored the needs of a child for his father after a terrible ordeal. Nothing can substitute for that- not all the caring community in the world. This is something I feel very strongly about. I understand the Technical Point constantly being brought up about the legal "ownership" of Elian, but the parental connection is the strongest there is, and having lost his mother, this boy needed his father. Do I believe Juan should have, could have, gotten there faster, done more? I don't know the circumstances affecting his actions, perhaps, but to me it's irrelevant, a case of punishing Elian for his father's deficiencies. Juan's access to his son should have been expedited, not denied.
Then, and only then, should the esoteric, philosophical issues have been addressed and debated. |
