[Thoudothprotest]

America and South Dakota, as entities, do not have any "right to retain the child".

What world do you live in? The State has a legal right to your child?

Gimme a break.

[crystalk]

It is you who are mistaken. The State and the USA have an interest in making sure that no one is taken from the USA and put into some foreign culture, I don't care if he is only 3 days old, if he is of US descent and heritage.

It would be different if BOTH parents were taking him, temporarily, overseas while they served as missionaries or workers for the USA government or corporations.

If when he is 18, he decides to join his mother and stepfather in Egypt, then let him.

If the Egyptian were his natural father, my position might be different. My judgment is based on his having both natural parents white US natural born citizens.

This is different from the Elian case, but of course La Reno decided that one wrongly too, for different reasons.

[crystalk]

Strictly speaking, it may be his grandparents, who have the right as sources of all of his genes, to prevent his physical removal by or to a step-parent. The state or US act for them, to enforce their rights.

This was well established with the Ukrainian boy in Illinois, which was much LESS clear cut even than this Dakota case, because (1) There both natural parents were going to Ukraine, here not. (2)There it was an uncle and cousin, not grandparents, who received custody. (3) The Ukraine shares with the USA a Judeo-Christian culture.

[Prodigal Daughter]

Stepchildren are not at all favorable to a muslim male.

Huh? I never heard of that. The few moderate muslims alive today, (that the fanatic muslims haven't killed off) don't have anything against stepchildren any more than any other culture. Now if the Egyptian is a militant Muslim, I can assure you that he LOVES stepchildren, and any other children that he can forcibly convert.