DamnDamn

[kyburg]

I really don't like being right. I don't like predicting the future even more.

What, you say?

A Council Bluffs teen who was dropped off Tuesday night under Nebraska's safe haven law remained in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services this morning but could be returned to Iowa eventually.

The 14-year-old girl was left at Creighton University Medical Center, HHS officials said. It was the first time an out-of-state youth has been left under Nebraska's unique safe haven law.

"We have made a formal report of the abandonment to the Iowa child abuse hot line," said Todd Landry, children and family services director for HHS. "We are working with the Iowa Department of Human Services to resolve this situation as quickly as possible."

The child is the 18th youngster left at a hospital or, in one case, at an Omaha police station by a parent or guardian intending to use the law, which went into effect July 18.

What, you say? No babies being dumped turned over - but mostly teenagers?

OH MY. Tell me it ain't so - well, don't try too hard.

You want why, you can talk to someone also on LJ working in the system in Iowa who might know more.

People abandoned their pets...they started tossing them over fences into the yards of people they trusted to take care of them.

Now, people are doing the same with their kids.

When I think we've hit bottom with the whole 'morality of modern conservative thought' - the bottom falls out again. Falls WAY down again.

(BTW, this liberal didn't have children before she knew they would be 14 someday and tell me to get stuffed. Or expected someone to take them off my hands when they did. *eyeroll*)

Comments

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i wonder if the kids being dropped off aren't better off away from people who would abandon them.

[singingpatient.livejournal.com]

i know this- they're never going to want ot go back, once they know they can be thrown away like a fast-food wrapper.
and they're going to have abadonment issues for the rest of their lives, which will make some of them turn to drugs/ alcohol/ other ways of trying to numb out the feelings of not being wanted, not being good enough.

and if the kid is an intolerable ass at 14, it's the parents' fault.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

is a clean break better or worse than getting an endless stream of subtle (or overt) "i don't want you" messages?

these kids need help in any case.

[singingpatient.livejournal.com]

sucks and sucks.
the one good thing about being dumped is no one will question whether you're exaggerating when you say you don't think your parents wanted you!

[moropus.livejournal.com]

They have to be better off without those parents. I am in favor of this law that allows parents to drop off kids of any age. If yo don't want your kids, keeping them isn't doing anyone any favors.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

I disagree.

If you don't want kids, you should think of that before you have them, or if you have them by accident, you should relinquish them when they are so young that they won't remember you and be traumatized by it. As an educator, I work with children who are sometimes shuffled from parent to parent (or relative) all the time at the convenience of either adult, and it is very visibly damaging to their self esteem and self image. I can only imagine it would be a hundred times worse to be left at a fire station or hospital without much of an explanation why.

Safe haven laws are not and should not be for parents who just don't want to take responsibility for their past mistakes as parents, or who decide their children are all of a sudden too much for them to care. They are designed and should be used by women who are cognizant of the fact that they don't want a child right off the bat, but who feel like they don't have anyone else to turn to. Even then, the law should be used sparingly. They should be coupled with strong social programs that make it easier for women to realize they have other choices aside for dropping off their infants in the dark of the night, and indeed other choices aside for becoming pregnant in the first place if that isn't what they wanted.

If you have a teenager that you cannot (despite desperate attempts) control, most states can and will intervene to sever your parental rights while providing adequate counseling for both parties. If the problems are financial, there is help out there. I realize that most of that help is inadequate, but it should be exhausted before a parent just looks to abandon their children (I am thinking here of the widower dad who dropped off his kids without asking for any help from state agencies and even his own relatives). And besides, if that social services help is inadequate? You fight to change things, you don't just dump your children like yesterday's trash.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

IAWTC

[singingpatient.livejournal.com]

unacceptable.
i have to wonder though, how hard would ti be to find out who this kid's parents are?
this law clearly needs to be changed/ clarified.

Of course, if it keeps them from killing the child...
bottom line you're right. people take no responsibilty for their lives in this country, including hteir obligation to raise a child once they bear it. how do you fix that?

[turandot.livejournal.com]

I think the idea that one should always bear children to term no matter what the circumstances has a lot to do with this problem. I don't think there is a right to bear children, and indeed most of the courts in this country agree. Perhaps those who knowingly relinquish children should also be required to undergo sterilization as a consequence. Some of them might even be agreeable on the matter.

The long and short of it is that at times people are not ready or willing to accept the responsibility of children, and some of them might know their limits, but can't do anything about it because providing alternatives that avoid a child's birth is akin murder in certain quarters, which makes obtaining certain services that conservatives fight tooth and nail (birth control, abortion) next to impossible.

The others, the ones who don't know their limits and then dump their children on others like unwanted pests? They say that the road to hell is paved with good intention... And perhaps a sterilization clause should go double for them.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I don't think there is a right to bear children,

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Surely you're not advocating forced abortion or sterilization?

[turandot.livejournal.com]

Forced abortion: no

Widely available abortion services (as opposed to some states in this country having only one clinic in the entire state that provides abortion services): yes

Letting people who relinquish a child older than 5 under a safe haven law to be able to go on and have more: sounds like a license to be a shiftless parent to me. In other words, if you decide not to be a parent anymore for a child that age or older, you should not be able to have another child at a latter date of your choosing. One would hope that the persons abandoning these teenagers swear off having children, but knowing what I know about bad parenting, those who do not want and refuse to take responsibility for their own children always seem to end up having more children... So maybe telling them that if they relinquish the one child they've got, they are also agreeing to give up the possibility of having have might help them decide to be better parents to the ones they've already got.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Widely available abortion services (as opposed to some states in this country having only one clinic in the entire state that provides abortion services): yes

I agree w/abortion access -


So maybe telling them that if they relinquish the one child they've got, they are also agreeing to give up the possibility of having have might help them decide to be better parents to the ones they've already got.

I cannot agree with you there. The result, to me, would be that people would:

=>keep children they do not feel they can handle, leading inevitably to more abuse and neglect;
=>simply abandon children without leaving them somewhere where they can be cared for - the very problem that this statute tries to correct.

furthermore, there can be a million reasons why a person might not be able to parent at one time, but might be able to in the future. A kid who gives birth at 17 should not be forced to choose between raising that child and being sterile for the rest of her life. also, I don't think the government should be in the business of forcing sterilization. It just smacks of eugenics to me... the government should not be controlling reproduction. Child care yes, reproduction no. Especially since in this scenario, who would be sterilized? ...overwhelmingly, the mothers, and almost certainly not both parents. That makes me very very uncomfortable.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

furthermore, there can be a million reasons why a person might not be
able to parent at one time, but might be able to in the future. A kid who
gives birth at 17 should not be forced to choose between raising that
child and being sterile for the rest of her life.

I know where you are coming from, but that for me falls apart when the child who was relinquished is 14. Even if the mom (or dad, it could have been a dad leaving that teenager) were young and inexperienced 17 year olds when they had the kid, they've had plenty of time to grow into the job, and it would seriously bother me if they could relinquish a child at 31, and go on and have other children (or indeed already have other children and dropped off the one they find inconvenient). Chances are, they are likely to wash their hands of another one down the road. Heck, I would have the same problem if that child was 5, not 14.

I'm not saying that a 17 year old woman cannot or should not relinquish a child, but that they either choose whether they are ready to parent right away, when that child is small and hasn't had years of bonding, or that once they decide to keep their cute little baby, they do not get to discard him or her at a latter date of their choosing. That is not providing a child with safe haven, that is psychological abuse. Safe haven laws should be reserved for infants and toddlers, not grown children. That's where social services, relatives or friends who foster, and other wellness services should come in.

[tomlemos.livejournal.com]

how many of those children were from same-sex parent households?
:)

[gretchen-marie.livejournal.com]

That gave me SUCH a giggle...

[turandot.livejournal.com]

From my limited experience (I've only known two same sex couples with children so far), in those households you usually have two parents who are not only responsive to their children's needs, they even almost obsessively anticipate problems where there might not be any.

I think it has to do with the fact that same-sex parents know how much disapproval for them there is out there in the world, and so they feel they have to try really, really hard at being perfect parents because there is always the specter looming around the corner that someone wants to take your children away not because they want them, but just because they don't want you to have them. I can't help but feel bad for how stressful it must be for them, and pleased at how together they keep it.

That said, I sometimes wish hetero parents faced some of the same pressures, if it would help them be that attentive to their children's needs. :(