Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (86207)	8/23/2000 4:16:35 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I think the logical inconsistency is this: in the Elian case, she said that we should set aside "welfare of the child" considerations, and hold parental rights sacred in the absence of compelling abuse. In the other case, she says that she thinks parental rights have a weak claim, and that even smoking might be grounds for termination.......

To: Rambi who wrote (86207)	8/23/2000 7:26:21 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

I view the Elian matter as an international law matter. What I believe about US custody and US parental rights has zero bearing on it. I say that because I as an American parent wish my rights as a parent to travel with me and my children. To expect other countries to grant US parents respect means that we need to respect the parental rights of non-US citizens. As a citizen of the US I understand and can effect change in the courts of my home country. It is not particularly onerous for me to defend myself here in a child custody matter. But if my children were taken from me by the German government- to use an example from real life- I might very well not have the income or the knowledge to be very effectual in pursuing my rights. This happened to the gentleman who had both his children put in the child welfare system in Germany by his crazy wife (who later wanted the children returned to their father but was unable to do anything to accomplish that). And Germany thought it was "in the best interests of the children" to take them. It is my opinion no foreign government should do that- unless the child is in real physical danger- as the INS regs of our country specify. To extend US domestic custody law by attempting to apply it to non-US citizens who do not wish to be citizens seems to me a very, very ill advised idea. Of course the courts see it the same way I do. This was an illegal immigration matter, it was handled within the discretion of the INS- BRAVO for a rational conclusion. I am thoroughly satisfied and am cheered that the Elian matter has spurred the German government to give US parents access to their US born children who were hijacked (imo) into the German custody system.