Ever since Solomon, a custodial decision involving a child has a natural appeal--probably as vicarious as it is vulnerable; and Hal Painter's attempt to retrieve his boy from his parents-in-law after a loose lend-lease arrangement following the death of his wife and little girl has already been fully covered in the press. This is ostensibly the whole story: of his marriage to Jeanne--very happy; of his rather marginal money-earning capabilities--a free lance editor-writer who after her death drifted into free-lance photography; of the fatal accident and the funeral (which he attended without a tie); of his remarriage and his attempt to reclaim the boy from his thin and tightlipped Iowa grandparents who declared that his father was unstable, unconventional, unchristian, whereas at most here he seems improvident and impractical. The case lost in the Iowa courts--was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court... The verY demonstrative tone (cf. the title) notwithstanding, the demonstrable appeal of the situation should find sympathizers.