Nebraska's safe haven law strikes again -- Mom drove from MI to drop off 13 y/o

this shit is getting out of hand...i understand the spirit and intent behind the law, but now lamebrain parents are just going to use it to ditch their badassed teenagers...


OMAHA, Neb. – A Michigan mother drove roughly 12 hours to Omaha so she could abandon her 13-year-old son at a hospital under the state's unique safe-haven law, Nebraska officials said yesterday.

The boy from the Detroit area is the second teenager from outside Nebraska and 18th child overall abandoned in the state since the law took effect in July.
“I certainly recognize and can commiserate and empathize with families across our state and across the country who are obviously struggling with parenting issues, but this is not the appropriate way of dealing with them, whether you're in Nebraska or whether you're in another state,” said Todd Landry, who heads the state's Department of Health and Human Services' division of children and family services.

There was no sign that the boy was in immediate danger before he was abandoned early yesterday, but an investigation into the boy's situation was still continuing, Landry said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081014/news_1n14safe.html

When you could send your "incorrigible" children or the older ones you couldn't afford anymore to the orphanage or the poor boys' farm. I had two professors in college to whom that happened back in the 1930s. Both were sociology professors, and one is an expert on juvenile delinquency.

on changing the law.

I'm not sure the boy would be best off being raised by a mother so desperate to get rid of him she's willing to drive twelve hours to do so.

granted, i do NOT know the whole story in that family, but if the mother put THAT much effort into getting rid of her son with no financial or emotional strings attached, she could have at least put that much effort into trying to keep him, or at least finding a home with family or close friends or somewhere he would find familiar and be loved...just imo

"Could" isn't relevant. What matters is what *would* have happened if the mother hadn't had that option, and it probably wouldn't have involved her investing that much effort in keeping him.

There should be a point where being a parent is a responsibility you can't just shuck off when hard times hit. There is help out there for people in financial trouble particularly when they have minors.

You have to suck it up and be strong sometimes, there are few things that damage a child more than abandonment from a parent and I even think that in some cases it may be worse than staying with a bad (not dangerous) parent.

The state cannot force parents to raise their children - laws are excellent at preventing people doing bad things, but they can't make people do good things well.

So if you try to say "this child is your responsibility; you have no choice but to raise it", what you are actually saying is "you have a choice between raising it and it not being raised by anyone". You can jail a few parents who neglect their children especially badly if it makes you feel better, pour encourage les autres, but it won't achieve much to help children.

Once a parent has reached the point where they don't want a child, the best thing for that child is probably often to be given away to someone who does. And that's by far the most important thing, even if it is letting bad parents off lightly.

So I'm going to step away and agree to disagree on a few points Donald. I am more concerned about a child's protection but what is best for any child is a very nuanced thing IMO.
Peace
S

...:shrug: