DCF officials cannot have it both ways | #childsafety | #kids | #chldern | #parents | #schoolsafey

DCF officials cannot have it both ways

A former student and his wife took care of a newborn boy through DCF. The process was long and arduous, and did not end when the boy came home to his new family. Because his biological mother was an addict, the baby had traces of opiates in his system. The first few months of his life were filled with doctors’ appointments and DCF check-ins, all faithfully carried out by his new family.

The boy showed improvement over time, and the young couple moved to adopt the child officially. But after nearly 18​ months of care, DCF returned the baby to his biological mother, despite the fact that she did not meet any of the conditions necessary to get her child back.

So it was with great interest that I read Kevin Rennie’s piece last week [Aug. 13, Insight, Page 1, “DCF owes Connecticut children a standard better than ‘not that abysmal’ “] on the death of Corneliuz Williams. Especially bothersome was DCF commissioner Vannessa Dorantes’ comment, “It takes the collective efforts of all members of our community … to ensure that children can safely remain at home.”

Children remaining at home with their biological parents is the ideal, but it should not be DCF’s be-all and end-all philosophy at the expense of children’s health and safety. Furthermore, the public should be aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of couples who are willing to adopt children — the “community” that Ms. Dorantes promotes.

It all seems a bit hypocritical to take a child away from a couple willing to adopt a child in one instance, and chastise the community for not doing enough when tragedy strikes in the other. DCF officials cannot have it both ways.

Daniel Gaffney, Meriden

Cost of electric vehicles is a price we must pay

Saying the cost of electric vehicles, to fight the climate crisis, is too expensive only makes sense if you ignore the scientific evidence and truth about climate change. This is impossible today as we are living with extreme catastrophic weather because of our burning of oil and gas. Spending a little to save a lot is a time-honored truth. Yes, electric vehicles will cost more, but it is still very little compared to preserving living on this beautiful planet. To ignore the changes necessary to fight the climate crisis is to continue our current path toward ending human life on earth.

Maxwell Warren, Avon

When it comes to an EV, incentivize, don’t penalize

I recently decided to look at an electric vehicle. This stems from environmental consciousness as well as being proactive as the nation will convert to all electric vehicles in the relatively near future. I also understand that that state offers certain incentives, but the vehicle has to be under $55,000 which limits your choices of electric vehicles. I was also shocked to see that the luxury tax still is applied to an EV over $50,000. Why would the state in its infinite wisdom want to disincentivize people trying to make the right environmental choice to help our planet.

On one hand, Connecticut is handing out money while turning around and taxing at the higher luxury tax rate. This just does not make sense to me, especially as we are struggling to meet clean air standards and improve this planet for our children. Incentivize don’t penalize.

Drew Borders, New Britain


Source link

How can I help you?
National Cyber Security