Elian as the "Bright Line" test for Children's Rights in the United States

By Karl Denninger, 4-29-2000

Elian Gonzalez has outlined, in bright (and hot), white lights, the issues of children's rights in the United States and how adults are permitted to abuse those rights with impunity every single day.

If there is some good to come of this tragedy, we must examine as a nation what has gone wrong here - who has perpetrated what, what basic principles has been trampled by the participants, what should be punishable under the law, and what changes - both at a federal and state level - we must, as a people, demand be enacted.

We must start with the first premise - that a child is born of their parents and they have a nearly-inalienable right to be raised by both of them equally. Only when one or both parents has demonstrated proven abuse or neglect - including violation of that child's rights - may we, as a society, interfere with that right of the child.

The Elian Gonzalez case ran afoul of this right almost immediately. As soon as the "relatives" in Miami filed an asylum petition for Elian, knowing full well that the father wanted his son returned, they abused and violated the right of Elian to be with his only surviving parent.

When one of the parents passes away, there is only one remaining lawful custodian - unless there is a judicially-proven record, at that point, that the remaining parent is unfit for custody. Since no such determination existed in this case, the only legitimate choice for Elian's custodian is clear and convincing.

The burden of proof rests with those who assert that Elian is subject to abuse or neglect if he is reunited with his father - not the other way around. Juan Gonzalez has nothing to prove, nor does he need to offer anything in his own defense. On the contrary; the Miami relatives hold the entire burden of proof - a burden that they have consistently failed to meet.

This isn't about the parents - its about the child and their right to care, nurturing, and custody by their parents. When we violate this fundamental human right we commit an act of child abuse and a violation of that child's civil rights - both of which are criminal and felonious acts.

Here the Miami relatives have repeatedly sinned. Their assertions that Elian was "afraid" of his father turned out, according to the Dominican Nun, to be based on the idea that he would have to get in another raft to go see his Dad. Now who, pray tell, could have put that idea in the kid's head, and who failed to disabuse him of that notion? This is an outrageous example of psychological abuse.

Further, the reunion with his father is proof positive that no real fear (absent that false fear planted by the Miami Relatives) ever existed.

Second, the claims of "spousal abuse" are without merit and should have been banned immediately based on their lack of timeliness and lack of corroborating judicial record in Cuba. Sorry, folks, but claims raised a year or three after the fact for the first time don't wash. Not in a place where the rule of law and court procedure govern - not some lying and politically-motivated desire to mess with a foreign and sovereign government on the back of a child.

As soon as the relatives made the statement that they would not turn over Elian peacefully under any circumstances they had declared themselves as kidnappers. Try this exercise as a parent in the United States where custody is shared and you find yourself on the wrong end of a felony indictment. That is as it should be. The bigger question is why the Miami Relatives aren't under indictment right now for kidnapping.

Next, the assertions by the relatives that the INS "broke down all the doors" has been photographically proven to be a lie. The AP has published photographs that show, clearly, the door to the room where Elian was hiding (secreted by the "fisherman") undamaged and on its hinges. Yet Marisleysis has claimed in film shot by CNN that the INS destroyed the door, pointing to a destroyed door and jamb in the same room. Well, if the door was intact when the AP shot the photo, AFTER Elian was placed in the arms of the INS agent, just who really kicked in that door? If you've ever tried to dismount a door from its hinges, you know its not a trivial task. But it is one, clearly, that family self-inflicted after the INS was gone.

Finally, the assertion by Marislysis that the reunion photos were "fakes" has been roundly disproved. Notice how she's conveniently shut her lying yap since a whole slew of further photos have been released - these all verified authentic by the Associated Press? Its funny how she hasn't recanted her earlier faked tearful claims, isn't it?

When such claims are made in concert with other people (e.g.: the "psychologists" employed by the family and the protesters orchestrated by Lazaro) it is our belief that an act of conspiracy to violate civil rights has occurred. This should be a per se violation of RICO (Racketeering law) and must be treated as such by law enforcement.

Psychological abuse includes many things, but by definition it has to include:

• False allegations made against a parent and/or repeated to the child about things that simply didn't happen or are blown out of proportion to suggest to the child that the other parent is "dangerous" to them.
• Misrepresentations about the circumstances of custody, divorce and financial responsibility (e.g.: "your Dad is a deadbeat who doesn't pay his child support!" when in fact he does pay as ordered, or is unemployed and unable to pay what is ordered.) Allowing Elian to believe that he would have to board another raft to see his father is an example of this kind of conduct.
• Attempts to keep the child away from the other parent by abuse of legal process, violations of custody orders (e.g.: not being home at the appointed times, etc.), kidnapping (unauthorized removal), etc.
• Taking of a child as a hostage and parading them in front of other people, including the public, to demonize the other parent. The now-infamous video tape released by the Miami relatives is only the most extreme (and outrageous) example of what is a common phenomenon in custody and divorce situations.
• Attempting to buy the affection of a child with extravagant gifts (e.g.: how many six-year-olds need two cell phones?) with the intent being to show them "how much better" they will have it with you rather than the other parent in an attempt to influence their opinion of where they would prefer to live.

Such allegations and abuses are, by their very nature, destructive towards the civil rights of the child or children involved. As such these events must be treated as both criminal offenses and confer civil liability on the person or persons who commit them.

Note that accurate depiction of abuses or events that really did happen are not psychological abuse. That is, if your child is actually removed unlawfully (kidnapped) in violation of a custody order, it is not psychologically abusive to explain to that child in a way they can understand why the other parent is being judicially kept away from them. In fact, it is your responsibility to explain why it is happening - since absent an explanation a child who asks that question is likely to believe that the other parent simply doesn't want the child around at all!

Leading a child to believe a falsehood about their other parent - either through omission or commission - is abusive. Parents and guardians have a moral and ethical obligation to be truthful without distortion, yet to do so in an age-appropriate manner that does not, by the act itself, inflict trauma upon the child.

The solution is available. In fact, its available right here. Go to the petition for enforcement of equal rights on a federal level and sign it.

Do it today.