All in the family: I'm the aunt of Dawne Gomez. When I read this article, I was totally devastated and fell to my knees and asked God for mercy for my little precious Rosa, who concerns me more than anyone else in this situation. Here is a little child who has been through so much, and where was the concerned biological family when she needed them? Here is a couple who rescues her out of a bad situation and have been the only parents she has ever known. She is in a happy and secure environment, loved not only by her intervenors, but by grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Here is a gift God gave to the biological parents who could not be the parents Rosa needed: In his mercy, he gave Rosa to a loving couple who truly look out for Rosa's best interests.
As for this Romero attorney, if she cared for Rosa, how could she try to take her from the Gomez family without even considering the trauma it would have on Rosa? I don't appreciate how she has portrayed Dawne and Chris Gomez to be the bad guys in this situation when they have done nothing but love her! What gives Romero the right to take the law into her own hands and go against what is right?
via the Internet
Daddy dearest: As a parent who has been dedicated and responsible to this blessed opportunity from its planning to its conception, and now as an ongoing father to this child/ adult who is now a college freshman, I know that parenting is not an inalienable right just as a result of the mere collision of two cells in utero, in a tube or in a petri dish. I have had many self-willed and well-planned successes in life, but I always say the finest and proudest thing I have ever accomplished is being an effective, loving father. It has been, and continues to be, a privilege with certain prerequisites that define and drive that privilege.
The case described by Julie Jargon is indeed tragic, but likely commonplace in this part of our country, and there is no "right" decision. But what is the "best" decision? "Best," a term too often used cavalierly and with thoughtless embellishment, can better be arrived at when one considers what is most appropriate for a nineteen-month-old child -- regardless of the "legal rights" of the biological parents, their extended family, the foster family or what "looks good." It is hard to believe that thousands of scenarios like this don't exist in the southwestern U.S., so why not study outcomes of similar cases and then arrive at the "best" (if difficult) decision for this loved child?
J. Matthew Dietz
Not Elián: Why does your paper favor a man who cannot take responsibility for his blood child? Children do not need a father who decides after the fact to get a new apartment, apart from five other men, to provide for his daughter. Children do not need a father who cannot decide to separate from a drug-addict mother to provide an appropriate environment. Your article also mentions that Chris and Dawne Gomez sold their house for $163,000; you assume that they did this to move into a higher-class neighborhood -- as if this should be looked upon with envy by the reader favoring Mr. Avina's humble and poor situation. Assume for the moment that maybe Dawne and Chris are not moving because they can afford a high-class neighborhood, but that maybe, just maybe, they are literally willing to sell the house to save this child's life and future at any cost.
A family is the thing of value that proves the difference between the two sides involved here. Our family has already accepted Rosa as family. Furthermore, this family is as tight as they get. This is not Elián Gonzales. She needs to stay in the environment that provides the only safety and security she has ever known -- not with a biological father who couldn't take care of his responsibilities before having a child and who wants to just send her off to Mexico and not take care of her himself. If that is all they can offer as a solution, then that is pretty weak.