Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
No one in their right mind can admire deadbeat dads. To that I would add no one in their right mind should admire deadbeat moms.The world has moved on from considering moms to be stay-at-home housekeepers, with dad earning the money to support the family. Indeed, many businesses (and countries) make it the law that dads get equal paternity leave when a baby is born. So why is it that the courts, child protection services and a whole array of government agencies consider fathers the ones who are financially responsible and culpable if a marriage goes wrong, leading to the kids usually being given to the mother? Mothers are automatically considered the best child raisers (which is often not the case) while men are considered the ones who failed.Just how far off are these notions from the hateful treatment of women in some Muslim-governed countries? Don’t we decry women having to cover up their faces and maintain the role of subservience? And yet we automatically tell dads to cough up the support money, take the kids away from them and seem to favor women, when in fact we are also saying their role is that of housekeeper and mother.A friend of ours was stopped the other month for a burned out taillight. The officer checked his license and registration and was about to give him a warning when the officer’s computer spat out a suspended license warning. The officer checked why, and there it was: overdue payments in child support. Driver’s license suspended. Nevermind the idiocy of suspending a license for child support payments, meaning the man could not work and earn a wage to pay child support.The man went to the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and asked what gives. They said his payment record was 100 percent, especially since it comes directly out of his paycheck on time. So he took that readout and went to the judge, who stamped it. He then went to the Department of Motor Vehicles (and you now the wait there is a joy) and they charged him $65 for the privilege of unsuspending his license. The woman handling it quipped, “Next time maybe you’ll pay your responsibility on time.” That “deadbeat” dad label stung, especially since that day he had been late to his night shift since his kids were left alone when mom went out to party.How’d that notice get on there? It seems that months ago the mom had tried to get DCSS to pay toward medical insurance for the kids, claiming dad wasn’t paying. That’s true; he didn’t contribute cash toward medical insurance since his company policy already covered him and the kids (and his wife when they were married). But she thought she could get more money from them, and so he became a deadbeat dad. The DCSS staff were more than willing to come to the mother’s aid without checking the facts.And in case you think it was all cleared up, it wasn’t. DCSS reports to the state, which reports to Health and Human Services (HSS) in Washington, D.C., which tell the police. Our friend was stopped a few days ago for a temporary license plate check and they confiscated his driver’s license again. Washington, informed by DCSS, should “take about three months to remove the notice.” Any punishment for the mom for false filing? None. DCSS said it’s not their job.Another friend was recently stranded in Asia. Going to the embassy to add pages to his passport because he was working with educational relief across two borders, the embassy promptly confiscated his passport because he was a “deadbeat dad.” Let me see — an American in a far-off land is suddenly stripped of that blue book, that proof you are an American, because of money supposedly not paid back home? The risk to his life in the dangerous country he was in was very real.Deadbeat dad? Nope. Two lawyers and 50 long-distance calls and emails later, California DCSS was made to tell HSS, which supposedly amended its computer and told American Citizen Services (ACS) at the embassy they could return the passport. Without spending thousands of dollars to resolve the issue quickly, the embassy was worried it would have to destroy the passport “within a week” unless resolved. What would have become of this American then? He would have been given an embassy voucher to return to the U.S. to be arrested. Yes, arrested.How did the notice appear at DCSS and HSS, and then ACS? It seems his wife, who took the kids to live in another state, filed there as well to get more money from the local government that, in California, had been legally decided. She claimed poverty and a deadbeat dad to get extra cash. The DCSS in that state believed her, and they still do. Why wouldn’t they? She’s a “state-approved” mother; he’s guilty before innocent.Making partners live up to their responsibility is right and proper. Allowing this double standard based on outmoded stereotypes of men and women is not. The government is wrong here — wrong, meddling and abetting crimes of bad parenting, deception and, at times, vengeance. That is not a good government’s job. Peter Riva, a former resident of Amenia Union, now lives in New Mexico.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.