This *law* they passed is the most ridiculous thing that I've ever read.

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

edited for spelling

I see they (MSNBC) neglected to mention a few other Nebraska laws that are about children - a minor child in NE doesn't own anything he has or any earnings he makes -  the parent can LEGALLY take every penny the kid earns until he's 19 and can take any object no matter how it was obtained.

They say no kids have been abandoned yet, but I know of 2 right now that are going to be as soon as they hear about the law - because their earning potential is about to wear off for the parents.

That state has some SERIOUS issues to sort out regarding their laws around minors.

Cat

Gee whiz -- and mine's too OLD to drop off.....  ;)

I can just see this now -- Kid turns 13 -- Mom goes into his room, "Honey, pack your bags... I'm gonna let the state take care of you till you're 19 - then you can come back home! We'll keep your room just like you left it."

Geeezzzz!

Hugs BD

good thing I didn't grow up in Nebraska...


:o

I think it's utterly horrible!! >:(

The flip side of that is the kid can write a book and then go on Oprah.

After their 19th birthday, that is.

I hope they don't pass that law in California...you wouldn't believe the number of calls I respond to where the parents say, "Take my kids, I'm turning them over to the state!!!!!" One more example of a goverment which is trying to convince us they can solve ALL of your problems!!!!

Guiseppi

Bad parents routinely nudge or kick 19 year old kids out of the nest all across the country.  So do good parents when the kid is out of control. Laws won't have much effect on that one way or the other with older children.

What about a single parent who has a younger kid, and the parent develops a mental illness and knows they can't care for the kid?  Seems that in those cases, it might be a good thing not to have to schedule an appointment with Child Protective Services and go wait for them to approve things and make arrangements - just immediately get the kid somewhere safe and get the process started that way.  

Giving up your children because "you can't handle it" should not be an option.  They should get help whether it be counseling, therapy or family.   No matter what age they are when they get pregnant or have a teenager in high school.  Unless that child is physically doing harm, they should work it out, not give up.  JMO



ETA: my opinion about the newborns given up is just that, my opinion.  And no monty, i do happen to think adoption is a super idea, but there is way too much bureaucratic red tape to make it go smoothly.

Melissa wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 11:39am:

Giving up your children because "you can't handle it" should not be an option.

Are you opposed to people giving their kids up for adoption? I know it would be tough for me (or most people) to do, but in some cases, it is the best decision.

monty wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 11:58am:

Melissa wrote on Sep 23rd, 2008 at 11:39am: Giving up your children because "you can't handle it" should not be an option.   Are you opposed to people giving their kids up for adoption? I know it would be tough for me (or most people) to do, but in some cases, it is the best decision.

monty, stay on topic.  The article is talking about giving up older children to the state to take care of, not adoption.  

I think that the law is about a form of adoption - not the usual pre-arranged release of a new-born, but the basic idea is the same to me ... parents that cannot provide the right home giving up their children.  

monty wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 1:18pm:

I think that the law is about a form of adoption - not the usual pre-arranged release of a new-born, but the basic idea is the same to me ... parents that cannot provide the right home giving up their children.

I see your point, but don't you think there should at least be other options explored to death first before they give their children away?  

That's all I'm asking, is for them to go through some counseling at least before doing this.  It's just really sad. :(

I agree that it is sad - but these type of laws are designed for extreme cases - the girl who hides her pregnancy, delivers, and drops the baby in a dumpster; the person who is fighting voices in their head, etc.  Not all of these people will make use of the safe-haven laws, but maybe some will drive to a hospital or firehouse, drop the kid off, and avoid a tragedy. They should consider some other alternatives as well, if they can.

monty wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 1:32pm:

I agree that it is sad - but these type of laws are designed for extreme cases - the girl who hides her pregnancy, delivers, and drops the baby in a dumpster; the person who is fighting voices in their head, etc.  Not all of these people will make use of the safe-haven laws, but maybe some will drive to a hospital or firehouse, drop the kid off, and avoid a tragedy. They should consider some other alternatives as well, if they can.

So then what do you think about a 13 or 16 year old being given up to the state in regards to this law?

Part of this is good........If yuo can't take care of your children, there is someone who can-and there could very well be some truly viable situations, but, Good Lord! Just how many parents woud abuse this just to get their kids out of the house?
How bout a Responsibility Initiative? You gave them life, now YOU are responsible for teaching them how to LIVE LIFE! Oh, and if you allowed them to think theft and murder are acceptable, then you should have to go to jail WITH  them!
Safe Haven, my Aunt Fannie! There are many parents out there these days who need to simply grow a SET! IF  you're their at the inception, you should be there for the duration, instilling morals, helping with the learning process, encouraging them to be all that they are capable of, and teaching them right from wrong...OH, oh! And nurturing them!! maybe this initiative will work if, for each child given this 'safe haven' one or both of the parents is sterilized.......
Thanks you, Mellie, for some food for thought.......

It's odd. You can't legislate everything. It makes it easy to abandon common sense....but....I don't have kids.

Charlie

Melissa wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 1:40pm:

So then what do you think about a 13 or 16 year old being given up to the state in regards to this law?

If the situation is so bad that child protective services should take the kid away, then it is a good thing.  If the parent is suicidally depressed like Susan Smith, a good thing.  A bad parent can already get rid of their kid today by anonymously reporting themselves.  

monty wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 5:33pm:

Melissa wrote on Sep 23rd, 2008 at 1:40pm: So then what do you think about a 13 or 16 year old being given up to the state in regards to this law? If the situation is so bad that child protective services should take the kid away, then it is a good thing.  If the parent is suicidally depressed like Susan Smith, a good thing.  A bad parent can already get rid of their kid today by anonymously reporting themselves.

Unfortunately, it's not going to be the Susan Smiths' who are dropping off their kids.   For one, I don't believe she was delusional to begin with and two, she had a husband to take care of those kids.

I believe that this law could possibly overtax a system that can't handle the volume now.  There aren't nearly enough foster parents out there (and there are those who have no business being foster parents to begin with).  What you could see is kids being warehoused until they are 18.  *Form* of adoption?  Older kids are the most difficult to place.  Throw that on top of kids who may already be having problems and it becomes a nigh on to impossible situation.


"A bad parent can already get rid of their kid today by anonymously reporting themselves".  

Huh?  Why would *I* (hypothetically) report myself for child abuse?  *I* wouldn't report myself for fear of going to jail!  Please explain if I'm not reading that statement right.

Quote:

How bout a Responsibility Initiative? You gave them life, now YOU are responsible for teaching them how to LIVE LIFE! Oh, and if you allowed them to think theft and murder are acceptable, then you should have to go to jail WITH  them! Safe Haven, my Aunt Fannie! There are many parents out there these days who need to simply grow a SET! IF  you're their at the inception, you should be there for the duration, instilling morals, helping with the learning process, encouraging them to be all that they are capable of, and teaching them right from wrong.

Cathi - This is such a good point. My sister was a teenage mother, but she is old-school like my dad! You don't have manners, you get nothing... People who meet him say he is the most polite 4 year old they've seen. He always says please and thank you, always takes his shoes off at the door.

When we were visiting my aunt and uncle with 2 boys (aged 9 and 11), we were sitting round the dinner table getting ready to eat. When my aunt offered them a drink, of course he pipes up 'Yes please'. The older boys - 'Yeah'. He turned to them and said 'Where are your manners?'. He wasn't even 4 then!! Well, you can imagine my sister and my dad's proud (and a little smug) smile. We were all trying to hold the laughing in!!  ;D

deltadarlin wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 6:03pm:

Huh?  Why would *I* (hypothetically) report myself for child abuse?  *I* wouldn't report myself for fear of going to jail!  Please explain if I'm not reading that statement right.

Parents routinely go to jail for child abuse, but for child neglect, they often just lose the kids with no criminal charges. The decision to take a child from their parents does not require abuse or neglect or any crime - if the parent is deemed 'unfit', the child is supposed to be removed from that setting.  


Quote:

Some state laws cite mental illness as a condition that can lead to loss of custody or parental rights. Thus, parents with mental illness often avoid seeking mental health services for fear of losing custody of their children. Custody loss rates for parents with mental illness range as high as 70-80 percent, and a higher proportion of parents with serious mental illnesses lose custody of their children than parents without mental illness.   START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

This law is total liberal bleeding heart BS, nothing more.  Oh, it's 'for the children', so how dare you question it?  Same old crap as always.  Do you realize this law doesn't even specify WHO can 'give up' the children?  Yes, that's a fact.  As ludicrous as it seems, even the BABYSITTER could give the state custody of your children.  Sound crazy? That's the law.

In the perfect nanny state, we won't need parents anyway.

If by liberal, you mean a tradition of law that goes back to medieval times, intended to reduce infanticide, then yes, this is terribly liberal.

If by liberal, you mean a US trend that started in Texas in 1999 after there were 13 abandonments in 10 months in the city of Houston, then this is despicably bleeding heart.  Darn those liberal Texans to heck.  

Sure, the Nebraska law could have been better written, but people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If a baby sitter does (for some unknown reason) drop the kid off at one of these places, what do you think will happen when the parent gets home?  They call the police, and the police investigate.  They charge the babysitter with kidnapping or some related crime and return the child to the parents.  Not a big risk to the normal family.

The practice of abandoning children to the nanny state is as old as Moses, literally.


Quote:

And the woman became pregnant and bore a son; and when she saw that he was [exceedingly] beautiful, she hid him three months.(B)    And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him an ark or basket made of bulrushes or papyrus [making it watertight by] daubing it with bitumen and pitch. Then she put the child in it and laid it among the rushes by the brink of the river [Nile].    And his sister [Miriam] stood some distance away to [a]learn what would be done to him.    Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, and her maidens walked along the bank; she saw the ark among the rushes and sent her maid to fetch it.    When she opened it, she saw the child; and behold, the baby cried. And she took pity on him and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children!    Then his sister said to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call a nurse of the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?    Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the girl went and called the child's mother.    Then Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Take this child away and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages. So the woman took the child and nursed it.

monty, THIS is why it is a BAD law!!!

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Monty,

It's for the children, so how could it be a bad law?

Gotta love that liberal nanny state mentality.  They never fail to play the "it's for the children" card so they can grow government to insane proportions.

-Shawn

Hey come on Nebraska kids are going to be the best kids in the world because now instead of saying  "do you want a time out" or "sit in the corner"  now they can say "shape up or I'll give you to the state" :o   lol......   This law is nuts and idle threats dont work....   Anyone with kids know you cant just give up your kid.  But if you are a good parent and you have a disorderly teenager, on drugs, constant run away, ect..  If you tried every thing counseling, thearapy, or what ever you can think of maybe giving them to the state may help.     Phil

Shawn:

You'll find that it's not the liberals that run around using the so-called family values crap to stick their noses in everywhere and try to dictate what goes in our bedrooms, just the opposite: It's done by those laughingly calling  themselves "conservatives." Liberals tend to keep out of legislating stuff like this more than those on the right that seem to think that if it feels good or is fun, it needs to be regulated or banned.

We have too many tv preachers as it is and conservatives are determined to inflict antique social mores on the rest of us in order to gain votes.

No. This has nothing to do with liberal thought.

Charlie

Here is the full AP story...

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

[quote]
11 kids, including family of 9, abandoned
By TIMBERLY ROSS – 54 minutes ago

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Eleven children ranging in age from 1 to 17 were left at hospitals Wednesday under Nebraska's unique safe haven law, which allows caregivers to abandon youngsters up to age 19 without fear of prosecution.

Nine of the children came from one family. The five boys and four girls were left by their father, who was not identified, at Creighton University Medical Center's emergency room. Unrelated boys ages 11 and 15 also were surrendered Wednesday at Immanuel Medical Center.

The law, which went into effect in July, initially was intended to protect infants. In a compromise with senators worried about arbitrary age limits, the measure was expanded to include the word "child," which wasn't defined. Some have interpreted this to mean anyone under the age of 19.

At least 16 children have been abandoned since the law took effect, according to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Two of those cases don't fall under the safe haven law because one child was left at a police station and one child's age wasn't covered by the law.

Todd Landry, director of Health and Human Services' division of Children and Family Services, said that in nearly every case, the parents who left their children felt overwhelmed and had decided they didn't want to be parents anymore. None of the kids dropped off so far have been in danger, he said.

"It was the parents not wanting to continue the journey with their kids," Landry said Thursday at a news conference in Lincoln.

The department was still investigating Wednesday's drop-offs. The abandoned siblings were in no danger and it wasn't clear why their father gave them up, Landry said.

Five of the nine siblings were placed in a foster home and the rest were taken to an emergency shelter, he said. The department was working on a new arrangement that would keep the kids together.

In the other cases on Wednesday, one child was temporarily placed in foster care and the other was in the hospital for evaluation.

Youngsters abandoned under the safe haven law are generally placed in protective custody while the courts decide where the child should live.

Parental rights don't end automatically but parents who change their mind about abandonment may find it difficult to regain custody. A county attorney may determine that a child should be allowed to return home, Landry said.

Nebraska was the last state in the nation to adopt a safe-haven law. Under previous law, a parent who abandoned a baby could have been charged with child neglect or abandonment, both misdemeanors, or child abuse, a felony.

State Sen. Arnie Stuthman said he introduced the bill intending to protect infants. In a compromise with senators worried about arbitrary age limits, the measure was expanded.

Abandoning teenagers was not the original intent of the law, Stuthman said Thursday.

"People are leaving them off just because they can't control them," he said. "They're probably in no real danger, so it's an easy way out for the caretaker."

On the Net:
Nebraska Legislature: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services,: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

:(

This law is bull sh!t but who are we to judge others we dont know the whole story,  I personally would never consider dropping my kid off like that,  but if I was told I was going to die tommrow and I didn't have anyone to take care of my kids when Im gone hell yes I would drop them off atleast I would know they were safe before I went.   Im just saying we dont know there story.  Let only GOD judge.       PHIL          

Charlie, you never cease to amaze me.

You know, I read an START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE today that reminded me of our discussions...

Interesting reading anyway

-Shawn

Monty,
I don't think anybody has a problem with the *safe haven* laws in their original form (that being dealing with newborns).  I don't think anyone ever envisioned that the law would be *stretched*  so far.

fubar,
I'm not going to say that this law was passed by *liberals*, especially given that none of the NE Senators have a party affiliation noted.  However, NE tends to be a solidly Republican state, so..................

No, in fact it was written by a Republican.  The language was changed to say 'child' instead of infant because a liberal brought out the red herring argument that the word 'infant' might be too narrowly interpreted.  So, they changed the word to 'child', which in Nebraska is 19 and below.  But you're right, Nebraska is typically pretty blue.  In fact, even though they don't officially have a partisan senate, they have twice as many Republicans as Democrats.  It's not the first time a minority has managed to  pervet  legislation proposed by the majority (that goes both ways)

Nevertheless, wherever you find some arbitrary inflexible one-size-fits-all, three strikes and your out legislation....especially relating to "family values," you're likely to find a grinning bible thumping Republican.

Charlie

Charlie wrote on Sep 26^th, 2008 at 12:53am:

Nevertheless, wherever you find some arbitrary inflexible one-size-fits-all, three strikes and your out legislation....especially relating to "family values," you're likely to find a grinning bible thumping Republican. Charlie

Glittering generality.

Well, it looks like they may have to rethink that law

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE