DON'T LET ADDICTS KEEP THEIR CHILDREN

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

It made me sad, angry, and a little nauseous to read the story about a
mother pleading guilty to neglecting her baby boy, who died of hypothermia
last December. She had left him for several days with an acquaintance while
she went looking for, and presumably using, cocaine. Your story hints that
something is rotten in the state of drug "rehabilitation."

As I read it, this child was in the custody of Social Services. Yet the
drug-treatment counselors only "advised" his mother not to take him when
she walked out of her treatment program. If the mother didn't have custody,
wasn't that a kidnapping. Shouldn't the counselors have stopped her, or at
least called the police while they tried to reason with her.

If the mother got custody before she completed the rehab program, isn't
that a serious problem in itself. How does anyone justify placing an
8-month-old with an unreformed addict.

The worst part of the situation is that someone in authority apparently
thinks it's okay to use children as bargaining chips to encourage their
parents to give up drugs. It didn't work this time, did it.

I am sick of hearing about the "rights" of biological parents who have
behaved abominably but still want their children back. Child-welfare
agencies need to be skeptical about addicts' motives. Do they really want
the children, or do they want support payments, so they can buy more drugs.

A more humane social policy would be to separate dangerous parents from
their children permanently. It might be hard on some parents. It would be
hard on the grandparents. It would be hard, at first, for children who have
formed a bond with the irresponsible parent. But the children would suffer
less, and would have a better chance to grow up safe and happy.

Mary K. Stoen. Richmond.