Lazy Parents Law

[Shadow_Ferret]

Nebraska has "Safe Haven" Law, like most states. Our own law, for instance, infants up to only a few months old can be dropped off at hospitals if the parent doesn't think they can raise it, for whatever reason.

Nebraska takes it a step further, allowing parents to drop off kids up to their teen years! Recently, an 11-year-old and a 15-year-old were abandoned under this law.

Safe Haven Law (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10433824)

Safe Haven Law (http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=9010728&nav=menu550_2)

Is this where we're heading to? Dropping off kids because they're too "unruly" or is it because as a nation we're becoming "too lazy?"

[Alpha Echo]

Oh my gosh. Wow. Really? How...how can anyone even want to make something like that legal? Is your teen driving you nuts? Does he stay out past crufew and talk to you with an attitude - when he talks to you at all? Are you losing sleep because your daughter's grades are failing? Drop them off at the curb and say goodbye to sleepless nights.

Geez.

Things like this make me embarrased and ashamed to be human.

[donroc]

Nothing new, just a different approach. Parents used to put kids away who were deemed "incorrigible" with relative ease until the 1960s, I believe.

[Haggis]

Can we do this with ex-wives?

[Don]

A natural progression for a society that teaches "government can fix everything", "there are no moral absolutes", "all people are interchangeable equal", and "it's not your fault" and that relabels people as consumers.

Got a problem with your junior consumer unit? Just drop it off at the nearest recycling center, then go on about your business. We'll whip that little unit back into shape, or it'll die trying. You can always make a new one.

[Christine N.]

While I can see the abuses for lazy parents to take advantage of this, on the other hand, there are teens who are, in fact, unmanagable. I've seen them - those teens who usually show up hours after curfew with a police escort, or even worse. MOST teens, we all, know, don't like their parents, but there are the rare few that even their parents cannot manage to keep in line. I'd bet there are some who are afraid for the safety of themselves and younger children.

On the flipside, I'd rather see older children in abusive homes turned over to someone who will keep them safe than for them to stay in the abusive environment. This law allows parents to turn over their children before the parents wind up in prison or the child ends up in a coma or worse.

But, like most laws of good intention, people will abuse the crap out of it and overload the system.

As far as babies, again, I'd rather see the baby safe with someone who can take care of it than in a dumpster or with parents who cannot physically or financially take care of it. It's a great act of love to realize you don't have what your baby needs and decide to find someone who does.

[SHBueche]

Dropping off an 11 year old and a 15 year old, does sound extreme, but I agree it is better that they find a decent home versus a place where they are unwelcome. No easy answers, no easy solutions.

[icerose]

Parent's have been doing this all along, they simply kick the child out of the home, except they have no where to go. The parents who are the type to do this (older kids here) wouldn't be taking care of them anyway even without that law.

But man, talk about giving those kids a complex. They have proof their parents really don't love them.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Yes, there are teens that are unmanageable. Still, I'll bet that both these unruly boys are just unwanted. The one was dropped of by an adoptive mother. The other by an aunt after the mother died.

Both said to have "behavioral" problems. A term so vague it could simply mean the kid wanted some help with homework when the adult wanted to sit and drink booze and do crack.

Always amazes me how some people try to put a good spin on lazy irresponsibility.

[johnnysannie]

I agree that it would be a terrible parenting choice to make and traumatazing to any child disposed of in this way.

However, I find myself glad that there is a safety net to catch the unwanted kids because dumping unwanted children is nothing new.

Some years back I worked at group homes with developmentally disabled and mentally retarded adults who had been moved out of state mental hospitals after spending most of their lives there. It was a hard transistion for most of them to make but in reading the case histories I found that many of them were taken to the state hospital simply because they were unwanted at ages that ranged from infancy to teens. By the time I worked with them on making a transition into "outside" life, many of these people were in their 50's and 60's and I had to wonder how many had been quite normal, just unwanted. A lifetime in a large mental health facility would skew any child's view of "normal".

Nebraska's new law - while a sad commentary on our society - is better than what my former clients got.

[MattW]

Sounds like a new way to threaten your kids:

''Clean your room, or you'll wish we lived in Nebraska..."

[kuwisdelu]

Well, the infant one, yeah, that's necessary. I don't think there's any disputing that.

But this teen one? That's just encouraging irresponsibility. You've chosen to keep the kid, you've committed to taking care of it, and now when things get a little tough, you're going to pawn it off on someone else? I believe in responsibility, and while I think accidents and mistakes do happen and for the child's sake, no one should be forced to keep a baby that's unwanted, once you've committed yourself to taking care of that child, 11 or 15 years later is just a little too latte to change your mind.

However, I agree there needs to be safety net for unwanted children, no matter how late. But that safety net needs to be for the child, not the parent. Give the child a mode of escape, if necessary, not the parents a way of dumping it on another.

Kids who are so unruly as to be a danger to their parents are something else, though, and that should be addressed. I don't think this is the best way to do it, though. As our society grows less scared of mental health, maybe things like conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder will become more well-known and support systems will grow. And hopefully that will lead to better ways of addressing the underlying problems, rather than more ways of looking for an excuse to cast aside responsibility.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Unruly, violent children, threatening parents' safety, aren't there already avenues for that? The Police? Social Services? Homes for Wayward Boys? Something like that?

But how traumatic to a child, especially the 15-year-old who already lost a mother and probably feels some guilt about that, to then be dropped off by the only family they know? Self-worth goes into the crapper?

Maybe the behavioral issues all stem from losing their loved one? Throwing them to the curb isn't going to help that any.

[Christine N.]

On the other hand (I have more fingers), isn't it better for that 15 year old to be taken somewhere safe than dumped on the street? Either way, I have a feeling the 'adult' in the situation would push the child out the door, so I'd rather have them somewhere safe instead of on the street, doing who knows what to get by.

Behavioral issues aside, I kind of think this is a 'there's no perfect solution, we're doing what we can for the children' issues.

[donroc]

While teaching in L.A., I saw more than few "emancipated" teens.

[InfinityGoddess]

Behavioral issues aside, I kind of think this is a 'there's no perfect solution, we're doing what we can for the children' issues.

I agree. At this point and time, child services are a joke. They don't have the budgets to deal with parents who can't take care of kids, and despite what some may think, jail is not the ends-all answer to a kid's behavioral problems, because often those problems are mental health-related. Other times, a parent just lets their kids get away with things and not do anything about it.

Personally, as others have said, I'd rather those kids be turned into a Safe Haven than simply dumped to the streets and left to their own devices. This way they can get the help that they need.

[Shadow_Ferret]

On the other hand (I have more fingers), isn't it better for that 15 year old to be taken somewhere safe than dumped on the street? Either way, I have a feeling the 'adult' in the situation would push the child out the door, so I'd rather have them somewhere safe instead of on the street, doing who knows what to get by.

Behavioral issues aside, I kind of think this is a 'there's no perfect solution, we're doing what we can for the children' issues.
You're just speculating. There's no evidence from the story that the 15-year-old would be dumped on the street. So I can't answer if it's better. I can only speak on what happened, and I don't think this is better.

[Christine N.]

I would think the number of teens on the streets would support my thesis :D. While a fair number are runaways, there are a percentage that are dumped or just ignored, left to their own devices to find a living on the streets. Many ways of which are not pretty.

I'd bet they'd take a safe haven home any day of the week. Still not a perfect solution, but better than some alternatives, the victims of which are evident in our society.

[Dale Emery]

It's time to reinstitute Robert A. Heinlein's "Bunghole Theory" of childrearing. When children reach the age of five, put them in a barrel and feed them through the bunghole. When they reach the age of thirteen, drive in the bung.

Dale

[Finni]

I wish this law was around when I was 11. It would've saved me from a decade or two of intense growth opportunities.
Hell, I'd even be normal!

On a serious note, as irresponsible and disgusting as it is, it will save a lot of kids from death, abuse, and/or becoming writers

[kuwisdelu]

Unruly, violent children, threatening parents' safety, aren't there already avenues for that? The Police? Social Services? Homes for Wayward Boys? Something like that?

Err, sorta, but realistically... what IG said.

I agree. At this point and time, child services are a joke. They don't have the budgets to deal with parents who can't take care of kids, and despite what some may think, jail is not the ends-all answer to a kid's behavioral problems, because often those problems are mental health-related. Other times, a parent just lets their kids get away with things and not do anything about it.

As our society grows less scared of mental health, maybe things like conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder will become more well-known and support systems will grow. And hopefully that will lead to better ways of addressing the underlying problems, rather than more ways of looking for an excuse to cast aside responsibility.


As everyone else has been saying, kids do need a safe haven they can turn to when their parents are neglectful/abusive/don't want them. But my problem with this law is that it absolves the parents of any responsibility or guilt in the case when they've already committed themselves to raising that child. Dropping a kid at a safe haven (at these older ages) shouldn't cut the ties of responsibility--the parents still need to face charges for whatever abuse or neglect the child may have suffered. They still shirked their parental responsibility. Of course there need to be safe havens for these kids, but the kids should be their of their own volition, not of the parents' volition.

[regdog]

Do I like the idea of children being just another "disposable commodity" no. But the idea of children and teens having a safe option is a good thing.

However I cannot accept the idea of dumping a child who just suffered the death of their mother. The hope is the family who does take this boy in will give him the love, support and help he desperately needs.

Sad but true story a brother and sister I grew up with lived with their mother. Their parents were divorced and the mother took a new job in another state. She was a violent, mean tempered, abusive drug addicted alcoholic. The kids tired of the endless abuse called the State Family Services who investigated. The mother cried and sang a sad song of how she had been abandoned by the father with no child support, (wasn't true but not investigated) how she had no family support (Not true but again uninvestigated) and how she struggled every day to provide for her ungrateful unappreciative kids. The investigater actual used to sit and drink with the mother during her "investigative visits". The investigater then berated the brother and sister for not being more understanding of what their poor mother was going through and justified not only her drinking and drug use as mild escapism from a difficult life, but balmed the kids for the abuse saying they shouldn't provoke their mother.

I know those kids would have rather been left ina safe haven then live with that looney. We're still friends to this day and both haveproblems stemming from their life with their mother

[kuwisdelu]

Sad but true story a brother and sister I grew up with lived with their mother. Their parents were divorced and the mother took a new job in another state. She was a violent, mean tempered, abusive drug addicted alcoholic. The kids tired of the endless abuse called the State Family Services who investigated. The mother cried and sang a sad song of how she had been abandoned by the father with no child support, (wasn't true but not investigated) how she had no family support (Not true but again uninvestigated) and how she struggled every day to provide for her ungrateful unappreciative kids. The investigater actual used to sit and drink with the mother during her "investigative visits". The investigater then berated the brother and sister for not being more understanding of what their poor mother was going through and justified not only her drinking and drug use as mild escapism from a difficult life, but balmed the kids for the abuse saying they shouldn't provoke their mother.

From my experiences with them, that's pretty standard procedure in my state, too.

*sigh*

:rant:

[katiemac]

As everyone else has been saying, kids do need a safe haven they can turn to when their parents are neglectful/abusive/don't want them.

Or when parents recognize they don't have the means to care for their children.

But what I'm failing to grasp here is that the safe haven law for infants is born out of anonymity, mostly for young/teen mothers... but if the child is 11 or 15, he is capable of knowing who gave him up. The same flexibility doesn't necessarily apply to a scared teen giving up her baby and a parent of a 15 year old. I don't get it.

[willfulone]

Yes, there are teens that are unmanageable. Still, I'll bet that both these unruly boys are just unwanted. The one was dropped of by an adoptive mother. The other by an aunt after the mother died.

Both said to have "behavioral" problems. A term so vague it could simply mean the kid wanted some help with homework when the adult wanted to sit and drink booze and do crack.

Always amazes me how some people try to put a good spin on lazy irresponsibility.

I am with you on this!

I never post in PC&E. I do not have the chops to debate with you all here. But, I feel compelled to speak on this for I am horrified at this situation. I think our society has become one of convenience and throw aways. If something is not convenient or working the way we want – get rid of it. This can be a pair of shoes hardly worn, a car, a bike, a spouse, an elderly parent we toss in a nursing home; for we do not want them to live with us when they cannot manage totally on their own. But, they are really not ill or incapacitated enough to really need skilled nursing care. (I process privatized claims daily – it happens all the time and all over this country where people live in nursing homes as apartments – I see the claims and cannot link the data for it is a violation of HIPPA to do so. Believe me or not, that is fine. But it DOES happen and tons. NOTE: I am NOT saying everyone does this, or saying anyone here does. Just it seems to be a trend.

Now children.

I am all for the infant haven supports in place. Give the kid a chance if you cannot deal – I won’t think less of you. In fact, I will applaud your gift to another family and your courage to face a mighty decision and do the best you could at the time.

What I address is my horror at doing this to adolescents in the throws of teen years and angst that have them physically and emotionally upheaved for their hormones and peer pressure already. Then WE (generalized of course) toss another dart at their well being by saying "you are not worthy of the unconditional love I promised you when I had you, created you, or adopted you." It sickens me. I will never be convinced the only alternative is to dump off a teen and give them away because they are "difficult".

I can see if the family is living in a car or has fallen hard times and they must provide adequate necessities (food, shelter, and education) to the children and do so for that reason. Because they no longer can – this is giving TO the child, not dumping a kid off because they are inconvenient or difficult.

But, that is not what is being discussed here. Difficult – even if it is proven the children are difficult, is not a reason to emotionally scar a youth. It is wrong. I will never be convinced EVER that this is the right approach to take with a difficult child.

I have a "difficult child". He is a violent, paranoid schizophrenic. He has taken a 2 x 4 to me (when he was younger, before he was controlled with meds) and also came at me with a knife for he thought I was something in his nightmare while sleepwalking. He still lives at home with me. It is only the two of us. I am 5’5" – 125. He is 5’10" and near 190. He could kill me with a blow should he wish it. But, fear of that does not dismiss my responsibilities as a parent. Should I toss him out for me to have a better life? That is basically what this says. Yeah, Christine, go ahead. The kid REALLY is bad news. But, he is the bad news I brought into this world. The bad news that needs my love and support more (maybe) than another child might. Do I take that from him and put him into a system without hope of ever being adopted (as older children rarely get adopted) or possibly landing in a foster home that abuses him? No. That is not what I signed up for when I decided to have a child. He won’t go away for I will do all that is Holy and in my power to assist him – even at cost to myself and my convenience in the doing. I choose him, to have him. I took that responsibility on. He had no choice in being born. Why should he have to suffer? I believe if more people thought this, those "difficult" children running the streets would be home more and less difficult. I believe that people just do not want to be bothered with the responsibilities they set out upon and thus, they deem the child difficult and quit paying attention. Now, not all parents, but the ones I read about here.

And, certainly, I would prefer the children who are abused to be out of their homes. But, that is not the same thing here and I will not cloudy the discussion with that. I get what others are saying on that part and I agree. It is the "difficult" label that irks me and the ease with which children are tossed aside when they had no choice to be here in the first place.

I wax on. Sorry. But, I will never be convinced that "difficult" children cannot be worked with. I understand some are dangerous and some required huge amounts of work. But, that was the burden we set upon when we undertook the endeavor and gift of parenthood.

Christine

[Shadow_Ferret]

As everyone else has been saying, kids do need a safe haven they can turn to when their parents are neglectful/abusive/don't want them. But that ISN"T what this law is for. It isn't to save abused and neglected children, it's for parents who have grown tired of being parents.

So this law WON"T prevent child abuse, won't prevent neglect. That's not even what it's designed for. In fact, if the child IS abused and they turn them over, the parent will be charged. So it sort of defeats that end. What abusive parent is going to turn over their kid if they're going to be charged?

No, this law only encourages slackers.

[kuwisdelu]

Or when parents recognize they don't have the means to care for their children.

Yep.

But what I'm failing to grasp here is that the safe haven law for infants is born out of anonymity, mostly for young/teen mothers... but if the child is 11 or 15, he is capable of knowing who gave him up. The same flexibility doesn't necessarily apply to a scared teen giving up her baby and a parent of a 15 year old. I don't get it.

Exactly.

I am with you on this!I wax on. Sorry. But, I will never be convinced that "difficult" children cannot be worked with. I understand some are dangerous and some required huge amounts of work. But, that was the burden we set upon when we undertook the endeavor and gift of parenthood.

Great thoughts, and I'm glad you ventured into P&CE to post them! I feel for you, and everyone else in your situation. I know how scary and challenging it can be sometimes taking care of someone who's mentally ill. It all goes back to my post where I started talking about how I really hope society is slowly becoming more accepting of treating mental health issues as if they're real, they need sensitivity and address, and it's not something to be swept under the rug anymore. Putting kids like your son away is definitely not the answer, especially with the state of mental healthcare--which really needs to be re-worked as well--and will only make things worse. Hopefully, soon, community recognition and support for these kinds of things will become more prevalent, and people will have a much larger support system at their disposal. Best of luck to you and your son! I just want to say it meant a lot to me for you to come in here and post that, because it gave me a little more hope for humanity :Hug2:

But that ISN"T what this law is for. It isn't to save abused and neglected children, it's for parents who have grown tired of being parents.

So this law WON"T prevent child abuse, won't prevent neglect. That's not even what it's designed for. In fact, if the child IS abused and they turn them over, the parent will be charged. So it sort of defeats that end. What abusive parent is going to turn over their kid if they're going to be charged?

No, this law only encourages slackers.

Exactly, which is why I have a problem with it. (The safe havens I refer to aren't--in my mind--the same as in this law...)

[regdog]

I suppose this is a politically incorrect question but did either of the adults who abandonded the 11 and 15 year old get these children serious mental health care for their "behavioural problems" before they abandonded them?

[Shadow_Ferret]

I suppose this is a politically incorrect question but did either of the adults who abandonded the 11 and 15 year old get these children serious mental health care for their "behavioural problems" before they abandonded them?
The stories didn't delve that deeply into the situations. But my guess would be, "NO!"

For all we know these kids might just have undiagnosed ADHD and could be very easily cured.

[kuwisdelu]

I suppose this is a politically incorrect question but did either of the adults who abandonded the 11 and 15 year old get these children serious mental health care for their "behavioural problems" before they abandonded them?

It's not clear from the reports, but my inclination would also be to say "no."

And whether it's politically correct or not, I don't know, but screw that. These are the kinds of questions society should be asking.

[Christine N.]

Ferret, I still don't think you're getting me. I KNOW that it will allow the lazy and/or uninspired parents to dump kids they don't want (I can't imagine not wanting my child), and I said it's not a perfect solution. It's a stopgap measure, probably to fill some need Nebraska sees that we don't.

[Finni]

But that ISN"T what this law is for. It isn't to save abused and neglected children, it's for parents who have grown tired of being parents.

So this law WON"T prevent child abuse, won't prevent neglect. That's not even what it's designed for. In fact, if the child IS abused and they turn them over, the parent will be charged. So it sort of defeats that end. What abusive parent is going to turn over their kid if they're going to be charged?

No, this law only encourages slackers.


A parent who is selfish enough to even consider getting rid of their kid will end up neglecting or abusing the child. Look at this woman from Florida in the news right now. She wanted to give up her kid for adoption when she was pregnant (which I do not see as selfish by the way), but the pregnant woman's mother told her not to. So she was stuck raising a child she didn't want. Where's the child now? Buried somewhere. Dead.
There are reports she neglected her child and saw her as a burden, so even if this child was still alive she would be being abused and neglected right now.

Humans are rarely nice to what they consider to be a burden.

[willfulone]

The stories didn't delve that deeply into the situations. But my guess would be, "NO!"

For all we know these kids might just have undiagnosed ADHD and could be very easily cured.

I have to agree. And, every child who is labelled "difficult" does not have a pervasive MH issue anyway. That is atypical.

It is likely the auntie did not like a child underfoot anymore (if hers are gone) or at all (if she just does not want/like younguns of any age). She may think ANYONE mouthing off, rolling eyes or flouting rules, not wanting to do homework, playing too many video games, etc. is difficult. But, a teen is a teen and that is part of the growing up process - to test limits, boundaries and come to some conclusions about life by trial and error. This makes them irritating to deal with on occasion. But, it does not make them "difficult" people as a whole in the vein that they are inherently broken and need to go in the trash.

Christine

[willfulone]

A parent who is selfish enough to even consider getting rid of their kid will end up neglecting or abusing the child. *snip*

I disagree with this on many levels, but I will state the most obvious. Giving up a child is NOT ALWAYS a selfish decision. It can be one of the highest degrees of selfless giving a person can make in their lives.

[Beach Bunny]

From the first article (they both say pretty much the same thing)

Karen Authier, executive director of the Nebraska Children's Home society adoption agency, said the cases should be a "wakeup call" to alert communities to the need for more resources to help struggling families.

Under the law, people cannot be prosecuted for leaving a child with a hospital employee on duty. They can be charged, however, if abuse or neglect is suspected, and they could be subject to losing their parental rights.

The parent's who dropped these children off are not going to get off scot-free. Under the law, they will be held accountable.

Landry said the department has the identities of the families involved. It will be up to child welfare workers and the judicial system to determine whether the boys should be reunited with their families.

An older child or a teenager knows their name and address and knows their parent/guardian's name and address. There is no way a parent or guardian will be able to dump their child anonymously and skip away without repercussions. Looking at it from a different angle, it is a way for a parent who is at their wits end to get the help that they need.

Unless you have had to raise a defiant or difficult child you have NO idea how HARD it is or how hard it can be. So, in these two cases the guardians have said "I can't handle it." Good for them. They have the guts to admit that they don't have the inner resources to care for these children. And they are going to get help. And that is so much better than a parent who turns a blind eye to their child's misbehavior and allows them to run wild. Those children end up in runaway shelters, juvenile detention or worse.

Yes, there are selfish parents who will look for a way out. You will have that with or without this law. And the way I see it, this is another way for a parent who wants help to get the help they need. It's not a license to dump.

YMMV

[InfinityGoddess]

I disagree with this on many levels, but I will state the most obvious. Giving up a child is NOT ALWAYS a selfish decision. It can be one of the highest degrees of selfless giving a person can make in their lives.


I think what Finni meant was getting rid of the child in more "malicious" ways (like murder) or simple abandonment.

[willfulone]

I think what Finni meant was getting rid of the child in more "malicious" ways (like murder) or simple abandonment.

You may think that, but that is not the way it reads. Read it again. And in the vein of the thread - not adding murder to the mix which is off topic.

It says that "a parent who even 'considers' getting rid of a child will abuse or neglect it." In the vein of this thread and to remain on topic, the statement reads that a parent who "thinks" (one must think to consider - no?) they could give up their child will ultimately go on to abuse or neglect for having such a thought. This topic is/was not about Killing - it was about the disposal of "difficult" children. Parents are human have been known to have thoughts like this when angry with a child. In most cases it is a fleeting thought in a moment of anger or distress, not necessarily a precursor to abuse OR neglect. It is definitely not an absolute mindset that promotes violence leading to abuse or neglect. It is a flash of anger or a thought. That is all. An angry person can think "I could just kill him/her". But thought does not translate unless one moves to act on such. And saying abuse is an absolute result of a thought in anger is incorrect. Finni diminished human "thought" to an absolute negative result that is not a forgone conclusion. That is why I disagreed. You can disagree or talk for that person (which one should never really do for we can not know what is in another's mind), but don't tell me I misread the post. I may have not gotten what they intended. But, I cannot know that (nor can you). We can only go on what they posted. You inferred what you wanted from that post. I prefer to address the facts in evidence during discussion. If I do not understand, I will ask a question. I do not I extrapolate what I "think" they mean from what they state.

Christine

[Bartholomew]

Nebraska has "Safe Haven" Law, like most states. Our own law, for instance, infants up to only a few months old can be dropped off at hospitals if the parent doesn't think they can raise it, for whatever reason.

Nebraska takes it a step further, allowing parents to drop off kids up to their teen years! Recently, an 11-year-old and a 15-year-old were abandoned under this law.

Safe Haven Law (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10433824)

Safe Haven Law (http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=9010728&nav=menu550_2)

Is this where we're heading to? Dropping off kids because they're too "unruly" or is it because as a nation we're becoming "too lazy?"

At least scrounge up the money and send them to boarding school, if you can't handle them. Good lord.

[willfulone]

BeachBunny:

I see what you say in some respects. But, if the resulting "punishment" is termination of parental rights, is that really a punishment? I mean if they could dump the kiddos off for the not wanting them, is it really a blow to these "parents" if their rights are terminated? Dismissing rights and responsibilities of people who think so little of them (the rights/responsibilities) that they can get rid of them by themselves by dropping a child off is not really a punishment in my view.

The additional looks at the systems in place is a positive though. I have to agree with that. Additional assistance to struggling families would be a great thing.

Christine

[TsukiRyoko]

I'm sure the kids are better off now. If the parents are so willing to abandon their kids, I'd say the kids will have a much better life without them. I hate people sometimes :(

[Takvah]

Norplant at puberty, and a course in parenting to obtain a license in order to take on such a responsibility. If it took some effort to have a kid, maybe some of these subhumans would opt out, or actually learn a thing or two about parenting before engaging in such an awesome endeavor. I know... how dare I. A woman is entitled to have a kid and not give a damn just the same as she's entitled to have the "thing" shop vac'd out if she deems to desire it. Silly me.

[willfulone]

Takvah you are right about the need for REAL consideration on ALL the future rammifications that go along with being a parent. That is the whole deal. It is too easy to dispose of things that are inconvenient - children are now on that list. It is a shame.

[dgiharris]

I think Takvah is half right.

Parenting should actually be a course taught in junior high and high school. It is one of the biggest gaps we have in education, that is, failing to teach things that are really REALLY important in life.

Parenting is something at least 1/3 of us will have to do, seems reasonable to have a few basic courses in it instead of just assuming everyone knows what the hell they are doing.


As for the 11 year old and 15 year old.

Many on this thread need to understand the difference between "Should" and "Do".

Should parents be responsible? Yes. Are all parents responsible? No.

I've known teens that were kicked out of the house. These same teens had no legal recourse. Many mistaken believe that the law swoops in and saves the day. That is not the case. You get packed into a border home where the threat of being raped, beaten, or killed everyday looms over you. You can get cycled through a foster care system filled with people who just milk the system for money and abuse you. You can get pushed out on the street because their just aren't enough shelters left.

The streets and these situation are not rosy. They suck. This law and event is a wake up call. Things need to change.

And yes, not all foster care and shelters are like I described. But they are not fun or safe places. Not by a long shot.

Mel...

[Clair Dickson]

I'd rather a teen end up in a place where they can feel that someone cares about them-- or at least doesn't trash their self-esteem continually. I work in alternative ed, and some of the kids go to homes where they are verbally abused (often very subtly). But the kids think it's because they are unlovable. The parents say it's because the kids are "difficult." Sometimes it's because the parents truly don't want the kid around (gets in the way of the parent's life, post-divorce dating, and so on.) Is that wrong-- absolutely.

I often wished my community had a place for the kids to go where they would be safe and free from that sh*t. I wish every community had a place where kids who know they are not wanted (for whatever reason!) could go and get themselves together.

The safe haven law seems kind of odd, but at least it's an out for parents who can't/won't do it. I don't give a fig about the parents-- I'm concerned about the kids. It may be horrible for them to be dumped that way-- but it can't be nearly as bad as a situation where they are TOLD (and in the case of many of my students, daily) that they are not wanted. Fine-- you don't wany your offspring-- get rid of them. Someone else can care for them. At least if they're someone else they won't hear over and over that they are worthless.

As an educator, I can't tell you how many kids are just flabbergasted when they get to our program and find that "someone actually cares" if they are in class or doing their work. I feel bad for them. No one at home cares.

I wonder if this law covers kids who show up and say they too need safe haven? That would be the more important aspect. Unfortunately, there are far too few parents who are able to admit or even see that they can't be the parent they need to be.

(Disclaimer: I don't have kids. Unless you count the alt high school kids I work with.)

[C.bronco]

Trust me. It isn't always about having the means. Some people just decide that they don't want to be parents anymore. That is why I have my niece living with me. Her parents went off, at different times, to enjoy a second adolescence. The state had to place her when she was 14.

My brother in law and sister in law are neither below nor above contempt, but fully deserving of it.

[Beach Bunny]

BeachBunny:

I see what you say in some respects. But, if the resulting "punishment" is termination of parental rights, is that really a punishment? I mean if they could dump the kiddos off for the not wanting them, is it really a blow to these "parents" if their rights are terminated? Dismissing rights and responsibilities of people who think so little of them (the rights/responsibilities) that they can get rid of them by themselves by dropping a child off is not really a punishment in my view.

They can still be brought up on charges of child abuse or neglect. If the parents are so bad that their parental rights are terminated, then it follows that the child is probably also being abused or neglected. The cases will be publicized. The parents will have to deal with public shame and humiliation, because there will be people who tell them exactly what they think of them.

What do you want done to these parents? How will that solve the problem of children being in situations where the parents are not doing their job?

The biggest part of the problem is that we learn to parent from watching our parents. And if our parent's sucked at it, then we'll suck at it. Unless, you make a tremendous effort not to make the same mistakes that your parents made, then you will probably repeat them. It's pretty much all the education and training that you get for parenting a child.

When you consider that 25% of the adult population was sexually abused or molested as children and then add on top of that the number of people who grew up in alcoholic and other severely dysfunctional families, then you'll see that a very large proportion of the adult population do not have the role models to effectively parent a child.

[Don]

When you consider that 25% of the adult population was sexually abused or molested as children.
I have a hard time believing that percentage. Any cite available?

[kuwisdelu]

I wonder if this law covers kids who show up and say they too need safe haven? That would be the more important aspect. Unfortunately, there are far too few parents who are able to admit or even see that they can't be the parent they need to be.

That's what I want to know, and the biggest problem I have with the law--it's parent-centric instead of kid-centric.

[donroc]

I may be repeating myself, but while teaching in Hollywood, we had more than a few kids whose affluent parents could not handle them and emancipated them. Believe me, they were the worst of the non-violent. No one could ask or tell them what to do. Defiant at every instance. All ego and id. No was a foreign language word.

On the violent side, we had one (as far as we were told-- there may have been more) who beat his mother for trying to ground him.

[Beach Bunny]

I have a hard time believing that percentage. Any cite available?
Sigh. I haven't actively dealt with this issue in over ten years. I'll see what I can dig up for you.

This book:
Bass, Ellen and Laura Davis, 1988 (3rd ed. 1994). The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse. Harper Collins Publishers.
This book states that one in four (25%) adult women are/were survivors of childhood sexual abuse and one in ten (10%) men are/were survivors.

A later report that I read in the late 1990's said that the statistic for men was going up and had been previously underreported (since the stats rely on self-reporting). At that time, they believed that the incident rate for men was probably the same for women. That when it came to being sexually abused the gender of the child was not a factor. I don't have the citation for that report as I read it at least ten years ago.

However there is this article on wikipedia with plenty of citations and internet links if you wish to pursue the matter further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
Specifically, references 11 to 15 give the numbers (some of theses are links in the wiki article):
^ a b c d Julia Whealin, Ph.D. (2007-05-22). "Child Sexual Abuse". National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, US Department of Veterans Affairs.
^ David Finkelhor (summer/fall 1994). "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse". The Future of Children (1994) 4(2): 31-53.
^ Crimes against Children Research Center
^ Family Research Laboratory
^ Kevin M. Gorey and Donald R. Leslie (1997). "The prevalence of child sexual abuse: Integrative review adjustment for potential response and measurement biases". Child Abuse & Neglect Volume 21, Issue 4, April 1997: pp391–398. Elsevier Science Ltd.. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00180-9.

The wiki article cites slightly lower numbers than I have. My guess is that with more people aware of childhood sexual abuse and doing what they can to prevent it over the past twenty or so years that the incidence numbers are slowly going down.

Regardless, the precise number was not the point of my post. The point was that a large percentage of the adult parent population does not/did not have good role models for parenting. Those who are aware of it, could use some assistance in not making the same mistakes that their parents made.

[cethklein]

The stories didn't delve that deeply into the situations. But my guess would be, "NO!"

For all we know these kids might just have undiagnosed ADHD and could be very easily cured.

Or even worse, maybe they don't have any disorder and the parents are just worthless. Someone had to say it. Let's face it, I've seen it more than once where parents claim their kids have ADHD or something else to justify the fact that THEY as parents aren't raising them right.

[Clair Dickson]

Or even worse, maybe they don't have any disorder and the parents are just worthless. Someone had to say it. Let's face it, I've seen it more than once where parents claim their kids have ADHD or something else to justify the fact that THEY as parents aren't raising them right.

Yes. That's the saddest part. The parents are blaming the kids for the parents' own failings.

Most days, I really think that parenting courses should be manadatory before they let the baby go home from the hospital...

[Kryianna]

I just saw an article that said a sibling group of NINE was dropped off under this law:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6022113.html

As someone looking to adopt sibling groups, my heart goes out to the children. The poor kids. This *can't* be what they had in mind with the law.

[regdog]

I just saw an article that said a sibling group of NINE was dropped off under this law:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6022113.html

As someone looking to adopt sibling groups, my heart goes out to the children. The poor kids. This *can't* be what they had in mind with the law.

I saw that article on my homepage and was coming here tonight to post it as a follow up. What the *&^%$^ are these people thinking? They had to have nine kids before they realized they weren't cut out for parenthood. :rant:

[Cranky]

I saw that article on my homepage and was coming here tonight to post it as a follow up. What the *&^%$^ are these people thinking? They had to have nine kids before they realized they weren't cut out for parenthood. :rant:

"They" aren't "They" anymore. The wife died, and the father couldn't take care of them anymore, apparently. And there are family members stepping up to take care of the children.

My question is...did Dad ask them for help before he dropped them off? If not, why not? And if he did ask them for help, I'm kind of disgusted that the family members would only step up and help out when Dad got so overwhelmed he dropped them off.

Odds are, Dad's going to lose custody. Still...yeah, not what the law was intended to do. I just thought I'd point out that this was an intact family until the wife died.