|
Some years
before my wife and I started our family, a good friend of mine married a woman
with a young son. My pal had grown up in a largely male environment: one very
“alpha” father, two brothers, and a stay-at-home mom. Toss in all-boy schools
until college and you had a very nice young man with an incomplete view of
male-female relationships and of women in general.
To no one’s
surprise he soon expressed a strong desire for a son. The birth of their
daughter wasn’t a disappointment, exactly, but there was no doubt they would try
again. And then again after girl number two. Some time following the birth of
their third daughter, the marriage came apart.
When his wife
moved out she left the girls behind. Though I admired my friend for trying, it
never seriously occurred to me that he could, or would, raise those kids alone.
Someday, I knew, their mother would come to her senses and ride to the rescue.
I was wrong on
all counts. The ex-wife neither came for her children nor grew up in any
meaningful sense. The girls, now nearly raised, would be any parent’s envy.
And their dad? Until recently I’d have said that he is a very different man
from the fellow I met in college and worked with early in my career.
In truth I
simply didn’t know as much about my friend or fatherhood as I thought I did.
Much is made of deadbeat dads who duck their paternal duties and rightly so, yet
by my observation most fathers love their children and will act accordingly when
push comes to shove. That their children benefit in ways that cannot be
quantified is, I believe, true, right, and no accident.
Which brings me
to the heartbreaking custody battle over Elian Gonzalez, the 6-year-old Cuban
boy plucked from the waters of the Atlantic after his mother drowned attempting
to reach the United States. Pitting politics against paternity, the fight shows
little sign of resolution after nearly three months.
I won’t make
you guess that I believe this child should be returned to his father. There is
really only one reason for that, while many grounds are cited for keeping Elian
here. None of these seem compelling and few are entirely forthright.
In a material
sense there is little doubt that the United States is a better place for the boy
nor that he would find more freedom here; the same can be said for the majority
of the planet’s 5 billion citizens. Elian is probably more charming than most
of them, but I don’t see that as a basis for sound policy.
His mother has
been portrayed as risking her life to improve her son’s. Perhaps, or maybe she
was just trying to improve her own. Either way, many overlook the enormous risk
she took with the life of Elian, who was the sole survivor. Lost too is the
fact that his father, who had joint custody, was given no say.
The pleas of
Juan Gonzalez for his son are dismissed by some as prompted by the Cuban
government. Demonstrations in Havana have drawn as many as 150,000, and I
seriously doubt such displays could take place without the consent of Fidel
Castro. But as one advocate for American children abducted by foreign-born
parents notes, she would gladly accept the kind of support from our government
that Juan Gonzalez has received from Cuba’s.
Aside from those blinded by hatred of Castro and the finger-to-the-wind
politicians who crave their votes, one can only argue for keeping the boy if
they first convince themselves that a father’s love is not real, important, or
particularly beneficial. Or that no third-world parent would rather raise his
own child than have him with distant relatives here unless he’s ordered to. And
that the fickle whim of government, especially our government, should supercede
a parent’s judgment.
Which is all a load of condescending gobbledygook. It is time for Elian
Gonzalez to go home because his father says so. And that’s enough.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
