![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgI 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 beingdumped 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*)
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
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*)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 12:09 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 03:47 pm (UTC)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.