Letters to the editor, Oct. 21

Ruling not in child's interest

To the editor:

I am extremely saddened by the ruling made on Sept. 23 by the Lorain County Domestic Relations judge Basinski's court. On March 21, 2007, I filed to re-obtain custody of my daughter by filing an emergency custody order, but instead, I was advised to agree to become temporary residential parent. At that time in order for this to happen, per the judge's recommendation it was ordered by the court that a guardian ad lietem and a psychiatrist be both court appointed, so all parties would cooperate to reunify daughter and father, of which was to be at my expense.

On April 2, 2007, I filed a motion for custody at which time the court ordered report was filed for the doctor sessions, with another report due on July 26, 2007. On July 26, this report to the judge was continued until Aug. 29, 2007. On Aug. 29, 2007, after finalizing everything with the psychiatrist and guardian, it was ordered and agreed upon that a final report would be filed on Sept. 27, 2007 and that child support would be modified due to a change in circumstances at that time. Nothing happened.

Then, in January, 2008, I was advised by CSEA that the child support was still accruing against me even though I had custody. I notified my attorney that the Sept. 27, 2007 report was still pending. On Jan. 22 my attorneys filed a change in circumstances motion which I was told was the proper procedure to follow. On March 10, the child support order was suspended with a support consideration, on my behalf, to be held on April 22. On March 31, the court-ordered report was finally filed, seven months late, stating that "all pending motions are concluded without prejudice and that there are no pending motions before the court."

This negated my January filing, but according to my attorneys, it did not. Since then, I have been to court on April 23, June 10 (which was postponed until Aug. 11), and then a trial set for Sept. 23.

On Sept. 23, the magistrate dismissed my motion for support declaring that because of the wording in the motion filed on March 31, which should have been filed Sept. 27, 2007, the father was not obligated to pay child support because my motion for support was filed prior to the case closing, voiding my filing.

Not only does this mean that he has had no obligation to pay from March 21, 2007, but not obligated at all. The court proclaims they are looking out for the best interest of the child. My complaint is that all parties involved, the judge, magistrates, attorneys, guardians ad litem, and psychiatrist all participated in a miscarriage of justice for the child. All the attorney, doctor, guardian, court fees, and loss of wages could have been better served directed to the best interest of the child. I do not believe that the best interest of the child has been accounted for.

Carol Wilburn

Oberlin

Driver injured family member

To the editor:

Two weeks ago, on South Main Street, just past Lincoln Street around 9:45 at night, some unfeeling person hit our 14-pound poodle, and kept on going, not even concerned enough to stop and see if the dog was alive. I don't know who they are, but I hope they can sleep at night -- especially that night; my family and I didn't. We spent half the night trying to make sure that our dog didn't die.

We went to one vet in Lorain that did practically nothing except clean off the cut on his back, put salve around his eye and tell us he probably wouldn't live through the night, that he was bleeding internally. The next place we took him was in North Ridgeville. They were a lot more compassionate and helpful.

Then we took him to Dr. Cobb. He treated him like he was his dog. The end result is that the little white dog, that weighs a little more than a bag of sugar, now only has one eye. The trauma knocked his eye out of its socket. Fortunately, the rest of his injuries have a little way to go.

In closing, I sincerely hope that the person who hit our dog, and their family, never have to go through the pain and worry that my kids, I and my mother did. All the vets we saw said we were lucky he was alive. Maybe dogs have nine lives, too.

Shirley Ferguson

Oberlin

Levy will support infrastructure

To the editor:

We urge Oberlin voters to vote yes on city of Oberlin Issue 28, the proposed 10-year, 0.2 percent earned income tax levy.

Funds generated from this income tax levy will support infrastructure improvements around the community including street repairs, sidewalk improvements, and parks and recreation upgrades.

Income from Issue 28 will also help fund a much-needed renovation and upgrade to the Oberlin fire station. The current building, dedicated more than 30 years ago no longer meets the needs or standards of today's fire service. Oberlin can boast a well-trained, dedicated fire department staff -- they are committed to the highest standards of fire and rescue operations. The fire station should match their level of excellence, ensuring top-quality fire service for Oberlin in the 21st century. Vote in support of Issue 28.

Bill Jindra

Robin Jindra

Oberlin

No tax increase with Issue 28

To the editor:

I urge voters to support the Oberlin city levy. For those paying the current income tax, there will be no additional burden. As the current levy expires, Issue 28 will simply continue the same percentage.

I have become increasingly concerned about the lack of sidewalks in critical high traffic areas around town. More of our children are walking to school. Public safety demands we provide sidewalks so that they are not forced to walk in the streets.

Also important to the public safety is a renovation of our fire station. The levy will allow the city to invest in expanding and updating our ability to protect both town and college, homes and buildings.

Passage of Issue 28 will allow our city planners to look into the future with plans to repair our roads and bridges and maintain city services.

Please vote yes on Issue 28 for the health and safety of our city.

Sharon Fairchild-Soucy

Oberlin

Shop local; preserve Oberlin

To the editor:

Energy costs and concerns for the environment are creating a new need for communities to look inward for resources. Now our economic situation threatens the underpinnings necessary for local self-sufficiency. Both small businesses and local jobs are threatened in every community.

More than ever we should now stop and think before leaving Oberlin to shop and before neglecting our local tradespeople to seek services elsewhere.

Don't add the cost of fuel to that of your groceries and to the travel here by service providers from other communities. Buy from our Oberlin merchants and hire your skilled neighbors.

Doing both will help assure the success of at least our little community's struggle for self-sufficiency.

John Picken

Mary Picken

Oberlin