I have been very upset over the open ended Safe Haven law in Nebraska. For those who are unfamiliar with it, it allows for parents to legally abandon children in a hospital up to age 18. The governor of Nebraska has called a Special Session of the legislature to fix the loophole and limit it to newborns up to three days old. Parents have been coming to Nebraska from other states and dropping off their kids before this loophole is closed. There have been twenty three kids dropped in Nebraska since July. Half are teenagers. It makes me wonder if some of these kids are transgendered and their parents don't want to be bothered with them? No matter what excuse they use, it is a cruel thing to do to a child. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be told that your parents no longer want you. Babies might be able to adjust to it because they would be young enough, but an older child who is already bonded would be scarred for life emotionally. They would never feel secure and trust anyone else not to do the same thing their original parents did. I would like to see these parents get a bill sent to them by the state for the cost of allowing the taxpayers to take over the care of the kids. State budgets everywhere are already strained to the breaking point with the economy. Putting this extra burden on the backs of taxpayers is wrong. These parents should be held accountable for their failure to take responsibility.
BigCloset TopShelf
TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
The Hatbox
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
Scarring kids...
If the parents honestly want to dump their child off, the child is probably already scarred. I would hate to try to guess what would be worse -- being unwanted and living with the parents, or having it proven by getting dumped off.
Ray Drouillard
I agree
I'm not suggesting this is the same by any means, but we see this all the time with animals. Pictures abound of the poor unwanted mutt whose eyes have nothing but love in them as it sits there in the cold and wet, slowly dying of starvation and understanding nothing about what's going on.
Now some lunatic has decided that parents can do the same thing?
Whether transgendered or not, this should not be allowed to happen.
A dog is for life, not just for Christmas should not be applied to children for God's sake.
It's time parents started taking responsibility for their children and not leaving it to everyone else to teach them right from wrong or worse, showing them the love they so sorely need.
I can't believe that's allowed
Perils of Politicians
The original bill was worded much like most of them, and had an age cut-off of a few days after birth. But the politicians who introduced the bill amended the wording due to a concern that young children, up to 3 to 5 years old, would be left without protection. So they rewording it to use the term "child". Simple enough. Unfortunately, that term is defined elsewhere in Nebraska law as anybody under the age of 18. Oops!
As for responsibility, increasingly people are not taking responsibility for their actions, why would this be any different?
KJT
"Being a girl is wonderful and to torture someone into that would be like the exact opposite of what it's like. I don’t know how anyone could act that way." College Girl - poetheather
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Disturbing on many levels.....
I've followed this at a distance, both literally and figuratively. My understanding is that the 'children' who have been dropped off have been done so by desperate parents who feel they cannot care for them.
I'd like some more details, but due to the age of these victims, minors, my understanding is that this information is being withheld.
If anyone knows more about this, please fill me in!
YW
He conquers who endures. ~ Persius
I think it's important to
I think it's important to get this law repaired, but I ALSO think this has been vastly exaggerated by the press. (Naw, the press exaggereating stuff to sell papers? I don't believe it!)
I have in-laws in Nebraska, so I've heard more of the details. A *HUGE* percentage of that 23 kids is one parent of a huge family: mother passed away, father unemployed and unable to care for the kids, so he dropped 7 or 8 kids off all at once. Ages 15 down to 1. So now we're really talking about 1 family contributing about a third of all so-called cases.
I think it's a badly-written law, and I'm sure some people are taking advantage of it, but surely the same people would be dumping their teenaged kids anyway if they have no scruples about abusing this law. Some parents have no business being parents in the first place.
Love,
Diane
Love,
Diane
AP Reports 33
As of yesterday, according to this Associated Press report, the number is 33. Five of those kids were brought from out of state, one all the way from Florida.
Scott
-- Moliere
Bree
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.
-- Tom Clancy
http://genomorph.tglibrary.com/ (Currently broken)
http://bree-ramsey314.livejournal.com/
Twitter: @genomorph
An insistence on "making people pay"...
...winds up hurting the people who can afford it least, the children. What kind of parent tosses their child out with the trash? We can be glad they didn't just slit their throats, which is far cheaper than driving all the way from Florida.
>> These parents should be held accountable for their failure to take responsibility.
Let them be "held accountable" by G-d. In the meantime, we can save the life of a child.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Nothing really new
Catholic orphanages used to run something similar, George Herman "Babe" Ruth was in fact left in such an orphanage because his mother was in ill-health and his father worked very hard. The Ruths' had already lost several children to disease and may have felt it necessary to save George's life. They visited him in the orphanage apparently while continuing to raise his sister at home.
My grandparents unofficially adopted two children whose parents could not raise them due to death, illness or economics. My own parents temporarily adopted two kids in similar situations. This kind of unofficial adoption doesn't happen as much as it used to for various reasons.
Maybe other states should pay Nebraska to keep this option open. For many children of different ages, this would be a preferable option to being abandoned on the streets or raised in an abusive and dysfunctional home.
As for personal responsibility, if one CANNOT raise a child properly, just what is the responsible thing to do?
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Define 'cannot'
Far too many have children because they were not responsible enough to prevent it.
KJT
"Being a girl is wonderful and to torture someone into that would be like the exact opposite of what it's like. I don’t know how anyone could act that way." College Girl - poetheather
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Cannot used normally
And holding those parents to some standard of responsibility they cannot meet helps the children how? What's this about, punishment of past errors or prevention of future tragedy? There are already penalties in place for such people who fail their personal responsibility, because that's the way the world works; those people are probably in multiple sorts of trouble otherwise.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Where did I say that?
You are reading far too much into a simple statement. I did not say anything about punishment. In fact, I bristle every time the media refers to the parents as having "abandoned" these children. It may, in fact, be the smartest thing they have ever done.
Just an anecdote to illustrate: When I was in high school I think every boy, and not a few of the girls, knew which gas stations had a condom dispenser in the bathroom. I know of only one girl out of 300+ members of the class I would have graduated from high school with that had a baby during the high school years. These days there are so many pregnant and young mothers under 18 that the schools are offering daycare services so the girls can drop off their kids while in class.
The problems are vast and the causes are many. But the fact the kids and teens are not being taught how to behave in a responsible manner is a large problem.
KJT
"Being a girl is wonderful and to torture someone into that would be like the exact opposite of what it's like. I don’t know how anyone could act that way." College Girl - poetheather
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
I didn't say you said that
I asked the question for the legitimate purpose of clarifying what you meant. :) It wasn't rhetorical.
As far as teaching personal responsibilities, that's another subject entirely. And I mostly agree with you there. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I agree
Too many kids are being 'raised' (I use the term lightly) by parents who can't even be responsible for themselves. Anything that forces or even encourages the parents to 'do their duty' and hold on to those kids is doing a great disservice to the kids.
While I am not a fan of government bail-outs, I'll make an exception for the kids. While I would like to see justice brought to the abusive or neglectful parents, I'm not willing to hurt the kids in order to make that happen.
We need to keep track of our priorities.
I hope I never get put in the position of choosing between keeping my kids while unable to raise them properly, and giving them up so that they can have a better life. Which choice would do them the most good? Which would be the most loving?
Ray Drouillard
Keep in mind if they are young teens
Then the parents have taken care of them for many years. As Erin pointed out, what should we have them do when they reach the end of their rope.
from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/14/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html
Tysheema Brown drove from Georgia to leave her teenage son at an Omaha hospital.
"Do not judge me as a parent. I love my son, and my son knows that," Brown said. "There is just no help. There hasn't been any help."
The Department of Health and Human Services published a background profile on 30 of the 34 safe haven cases. The report found:
Twenty-seven children have received mental health treatment.
28 children come from single-parent homes.
22 children had a parent with a history of incarceration.
20 of the 30 children are white; eight are black.
There are 6,600 children in state custody, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Per capita, the figure is one of the highest rates in the country, Landry said.
"I think this has spurred some really healthy conversations about how do parents get the help that they need when they are struggling with some of these parenting issues," he said.
"And the message that we have been trying to get out is, 'Don't wait until it's a crisis. Reach out to your family and friends.'
My thoughts.
First for anyone to have a family that big(7 or 8 kids) unless we're talking about farm ownership is just plain irresponsible imo. I'm just wondering what you can feed them even if you're a tightwad and go to a restaurant almost never. My thought is you'd almost have to feed them crap or pretty close to it. Even at $50K yourself it's a heavy burden.
On the other hand for the people having one or two kids I really feel for them if they're that bad off. You just have to remember to really look at things financially before. I'm sure some will argue with me but getting creative would help. "Do you feel eating meat is a necessity?" is one of the questions you'll have to ask yourself. "Have I cut restaurants out?" is one more. "Am I still buying prepackaged mixes and food?". I mean the bottom line is going to the bulk bins and possibly looking at buying clubs(NOT Costco or Sam's) and sharing the cost of the massive amount can help. The buying clubs I'm referring to have made deals with certain companies to match amounts with stores so you get it slightly above cost of the maker. These clubs also don't have membership fees to my knowledge.
I just say this so big because if I have kids I don't want the federal government filling their heads with garbage. I don't trust them one whit.