Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!uscvax!arens
From: arens@uscvax.UUCP (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: net.kids,net.legal,net.politics
Subject: Re: ACLU and Parent's Rights (in re Walter Polovchak)
Message-ID: <32@uscvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 17:10:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: uscvax.32
Posted: Wed Oct  2 17:10:24 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 03:45:41 EDT
References: <11821@rochester.UUCP> <1679@umcp-cs.UUCP> <2496@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 16
Xref: watmath net.kids:2134 net.legal:2418 net.politics:11344

Well, I recently read the ACLU's own account of this case, and it
seems that their detractors are attacking a straw man.

The ACLU did *not* go to court to argue that the boy's parents had
the right to force him to go with them to the USSR.  They went to
court to ask that an earlier ruling removing the boy from the
custody of his parents be set aside.  Their reason was that the
first hearing took place without the parents having legal counsel.
They wanted (and got) the court to rule that a child cannot be
removed from the custody of his parents if they want but do not
have a lawyer present at the hearing.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yigal Arens
USC