It’s Father’s Day, 2012. I’m sitting on my deck, cold glass of wine and a pipe at hand. Today has been quiet, and good; I had a wonderful hike with my wife and our dog, at a little known canyon on the east side of the Salt Lake Valley. The hike was in lush, green country, filled with ferns and deciduous trees; oaks, cottonwoods, and maples fill this canyon. In a very short time, we had reached a point where you could not hear any sounds of “civilization.” While it was not an easy hike (we gained 1600 feet in 1 hour); it was well worth the trip.
Perhaps what I enjoyed most about this particular hike was how quickly it brought me back to similar hikes with my children, who are both adults with spouses and children of their own. In the brief time we were the “controlling parents” Kathleen and I tried, with a good degree of success, to instill in our children a love of nature, all its beauty, and the values of being a family, enjoying and understanding life and its rewards. The reward, now achieved, is watching our children now do the same entertainments with their own children, and listening with joy to our grandchildren explaining with happiness the various walks, trips and family camaraderie enjoyed and remembered by all.
More than all of that, however, is the positive feeling I have for the success of our children. They have found love, companionship, and comfort with a person they are comfortable with. Our children have enjoyed becoming adults, spouses, and parents; and really, what more can a father ask for?
Being a parent is not easy! There really are no “guidebooks” for the role we play as parents. We can only try, with greater or lesser success, to bring forth the best we had as youth, and use our best skills to improve on what our own parents taught us. In this process, we analyze what the experiences of our own youth gave us, and selectively use the positive and discard the negative. Certainly, I have watched with pleasure as our children matured and eventually became parents in their own right. They will, I am sure, choose different paths for their families that we did, and I am also certain they will be very successful in their decision.
It’s good to be a father, and even better to be a grandfather! To all of the fathers that read this post, congratulations! I raise a glass in a toast to all of us! (Oh, yes, mothers also, but this is Fathers Day!)
Enjoy!
This blog contains some of my personal, political, moral, and social views of our society today. All of the posts here are copyrighted, and may not be used, copied, etc. without the permission of the author. Comments are welcome! All comments must be in a family-acceptable verbiage. Feel free to share this blog with anyone that might be interested in reading and/or discussing the material I present. Thanks for visiting. R.M. "Bob" Hartman
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
An "Administrative Rule Change" with bad effects
An administrative rule change to a recent Utah law will have a negative impact on the children of a household receiving TANF or “welfare” funds. This rule change, in plain English, allows the Department of Workforce Services to deny funds to the entire household if one or more members of the household fails to comply with the mandatory drug testing/rehabilitation requirements of Utah law. The intent of the rule change is, perhaps, admirable; it requires all the adults in the household to be clean from illegal substances in order to receive TANF assistance. The effect of the law is not so honorable; in fact, it goes against the oft-stated “family values” of Utah.
In brief, the law requires all adults who file for TANF assistance to complete a questionnaire that will determine if the individual is potentially using illegal substances. If the answers indicate a potential drug abuse issue, the person must then submit to a drug screening; failure to pass the screening results in one of two outcomes: the individual must enter rehab and successfully pass subsequent drug screenings, or the funds are denied to the entire household. “Individuals in the household who have been disqualified from the receipt of assistance because of an IPV are also required to complete a substance abuse questionnaire and otherwise comply with this section.” (R986-200-221. Drug Testing Requirements, Section 1)
The rule, as stated, does not specify the ages of those “required to complete…” etc. one can only (naively) hope that the questionnaire would not be administrated to minors unable to comprehend the implications of the questionnaire; however, that is not germane to my opposition of this rule.
This unforeseen (?) “rule change” to the law that was passed by the legislature would deny ALL benefits to a household if ANY member of the household is not in compliance with the illegal substance issues. To deny children food, medical care, etc. based upon one or more adult’s addiction is inhumane, if not cruel; and it will have long-reaching, negative social-economic effects. To wit: when Johnny goes to school, and the teacher observes unusual behavior; upon discussion she finds the family cannot feed the children and, as required by Utah law, she informs the Division of Family Services. The children are subsequently removed from the home and become wards of the court. Thereafter, they may or may not be placed in foster homes, or adopted (together or separately); they may stay “in the system” until adulthood. The “state” -you and I- will be paying for the cost associated with this “care” including but not limited to the attorneys, court costs, DFS workers, medical care, etc.
Alternatively, the parents may decide to take other negative directions, perhaps to crime to support the children (and, yes their own habits); they may decide to abuse or abandon the children and/or each other. Again, there are negative social-economic results.
I support the intent of the law passed by our governing body; an adult that uses illegal drugs should not receive the benefit of our society’s generosity to the deserving unemployed/underemployed. However, I do not support, nor will I stand by idle, while an agency changes the rules to have a negative impact on children who have no voice.
To Kristen Cox, Executive Director Division of Workforce Services, do NOT implement this “rule change!”
To the citizens of Utah, please contact your legislative representatives, and let them know you do not approve of the agency’s changes to the law.
To those of you outside of Utah who may read this article: be very aware of what is happening in your own state.
Thank you for reading, please feel free to respond.
In brief, the law requires all adults who file for TANF assistance to complete a questionnaire that will determine if the individual is potentially using illegal substances. If the answers indicate a potential drug abuse issue, the person must then submit to a drug screening; failure to pass the screening results in one of two outcomes: the individual must enter rehab and successfully pass subsequent drug screenings, or the funds are denied to the entire household. “Individuals in the household who have been disqualified from the receipt of assistance because of an IPV are also required to complete a substance abuse questionnaire and otherwise comply with this section.” (R986-200-221. Drug Testing Requirements, Section 1)
The rule, as stated, does not specify the ages of those “required to complete…” etc. one can only (naively) hope that the questionnaire would not be administrated to minors unable to comprehend the implications of the questionnaire; however, that is not germane to my opposition of this rule.
This unforeseen (?) “rule change” to the law that was passed by the legislature would deny ALL benefits to a household if ANY member of the household is not in compliance with the illegal substance issues. To deny children food, medical care, etc. based upon one or more adult’s addiction is inhumane, if not cruel; and it will have long-reaching, negative social-economic effects. To wit: when Johnny goes to school, and the teacher observes unusual behavior; upon discussion she finds the family cannot feed the children and, as required by Utah law, she informs the Division of Family Services. The children are subsequently removed from the home and become wards of the court. Thereafter, they may or may not be placed in foster homes, or adopted (together or separately); they may stay “in the system” until adulthood. The “state” -you and I- will be paying for the cost associated with this “care” including but not limited to the attorneys, court costs, DFS workers, medical care, etc.
Alternatively, the parents may decide to take other negative directions, perhaps to crime to support the children (and, yes their own habits); they may decide to abuse or abandon the children and/or each other. Again, there are negative social-economic results.
I support the intent of the law passed by our governing body; an adult that uses illegal drugs should not receive the benefit of our society’s generosity to the deserving unemployed/underemployed. However, I do not support, nor will I stand by idle, while an agency changes the rules to have a negative impact on children who have no voice.
To Kristen Cox, Executive Director Division of Workforce Services, do NOT implement this “rule change!”
To the citizens of Utah, please contact your legislative representatives, and let them know you do not approve of the agency’s changes to the law.
To those of you outside of Utah who may read this article: be very aware of what is happening in your own state.
Thank you for reading, please feel free to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)