NE "Safe Haven" - abandonment

[Nadme]

Is this considered discussing politics? If so please delete. I see it as a human interest piece. My apologies in advance if otherwise:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_on_re_us/safe_haven

Gosh. :( 17-year-old boy left at hospital (legally) by stepfather and mother.

Calls are going out for the law to be revised/better defined. Initially the "safe haven" (it's okay to abandon your kid) law was meant to be exclusively for infants under the age of 3 months old.

I have no idea regarding the challenges of parenting and don't intend to sound glib or judgmental...but this is a bad idea and yes it must be addressed and re-defined along age lines.

Where's the incentive to try and make a family (biological or blended) work?

That's the last thing we need: A bunch of kids being tossed to agencies, to be "reared" therein. That seldom produces a good result. :hand:

[tdvance]

A very tough question--after all, babies do get abandoned in dumpsters. Yet, we don't want the method of preventing that to encourage abandonment where it wouldn't happen otherwise. Perhaps the only solution is to prosecute--hard, as if it were attempted murder or close to it--people who leave babies in dumpsters, i.e. much harsher penalties for "reckless" or dangerous abandonment than leaving the baby in a basket at an orphanage, which is mere "abandonment" and not so likely to result in death.

[Nadme]

What they need to do is say "It's okay to leave children under the age of ____" and make it a definite age. Under 12 months should be adequate.

Of course it's absolutely abyssmal anyone would abandon a child.

We already have a highly "disposable" society. If you're "inconvenienced" in some way (even if brought upon one's self) just get rid of it ASAP.

That "philosophy" has proven, imo, to be a snowballing nightmare. Where's the responsibility?

[PraedSt]

Sorry Nadme, what was the point of the 'safe-haven' law in the first place? Even for 3-month old infants I mean. The article doesn't quite make it clear. The Gov. says:"This law needs to be changed to focus on its original intent, which is to protect infants." How does this work? Or how is this supposed to work, I should ask. Thanks.

[tdvance]

I think it is "protection from being left in a dumpster" and the like. I think that would have been the intent.

[BigDon]

You all aren't familiar with "orphanages" in Latin America are you guys?

[NEOWatcher]

Sorry Nadme, what was the point of the 'safe-haven' law in the first place? Even for 3-month old infants I mean. The article doesn't quite make it clear. The Gov. says: How does this work? Or how is this supposed to work, I should ask. Thanks.
I think tdvance hit upon that answer. IIRC when the law was first going into effect, it was mentioned as addressing the issues about the endangerment of unwanted newborns.
Now; the article mentions the intent of up to 3 days old. That tells me it's not about raising the child but the dangers of an unwanted pregnancy.

I think there may also be some underlying unmentioned religious ties to this law, but that's probably not a good thing to speculate on.

But; this whole situation does reinforce something that I have always thought was a failing in our legislative process. That is... laws should be written in a way to explain the problem they are to solve, and how they expect it to be solved. That way, the crimes can be tried and convicted in accordance of the intent of the law rather than the technicalities of the law.

[PraedSt]

I think it is "protection from being left in a dumpster" and the like. I think that would have been the intent.
You all aren't familiar with "orphanages" in Latin America are you guys?

Thanks guys. Although I didn't know being left in the care of an orphanage was treated as abandonment. Ok.
Latin America? :) India. There are plenty of orphanages here, fortunately or unfortunately.

And thanks to you Neo. I agree about that law bit, though I fear it may be wishful thinking on my part. Also, I was thinking about the pregnancy angle too. So I don't want to embroiled this discussion :)

[BigDon]

I think there may also be some underlying unmentioned religious ties to this law, but that's probably not a good thing to speculate on.



No. Young kids were abandoning newborns in none survivable locations, thus making them murderers.

This was to stop the destruction of two or more lives.

And religeon is not a bad word.

[NEOWatcher]

No. Young kids were abandoning newborns in none survivable locations, thus making them murderers.
No, it was not directed to actions of the birth itself; I was thinking along the lines of the pressures as it relates to the pregnancy in the first place.

I know I'm being vague, but that's on purpose.

[Nadme]

Technically speaking, there shouldn't even be such a thing as "unwanted pregnancies" in the US. Not with all the birth control (often free) methods out there...

[BigDon]

Technically speaking, there shouldn't even be such a thing as "unwanted pregnancies" in the US. Not with all the birth control (often free) methods out there...

C'mon Nadme, that's like saying there shouldn't be traffic accidents because of brakes and windsheilds. :)

Were talking about humans over the broad spectrum.

[Nadme]

C'mon Nadme, that's like saying there shouldn't be traffic accidents because of brakes and windsheilds. :)

Were talking about humans over the broad spectrum.

Yeah, I suppose. It's just that I get so frustrated.

But we know that careful drivers are less prone to get into accidents. Same principle applies.

We must be careful not to inadvertently encourage irresponsible behaviors [who cares/here's an easy out]. Too many people take advantage of that and the rest of us pay for it.

[BigDon]

A close to home example is the girl across the street was empregnanted by her older brother. He was all of 14. Where does that fit in with free birth control? And they incarcerated him for it too. And while inside he became a total gangster.

It's those things you can't account for that get you. Who would have thought of that happening? I sure as hell didn't.

[Fazor]

We must be careful not to inadvertently encourage irresponsible behaviors [who cares/here's an easy out]. Too many people take advantage of that and the rest of us pay for it.

Possibly, yes. But nothing has shown me that people are not "being careful" and having kids willy nilly simply because they can legally drop them off at safe havens.

[eric_marsh]

I can see that it can be just too overwhelming for parents to raise their kids for many different reasons. They may not have enough money to put food on the table. The kids may just be out of control. The parents themselves may simply not have the maturity to deal with having kids. There are no doubt a thousand other reasons as well. Should we force these people to raise their kids, or should the kids be forced to stay with unfit parents? There has to be a safety valve.

[Nadme]

I can see that it can be just too overwhelming for parents to raise their kids for many different reasons. They may not have enough money to put food on the table. The kids may just be out of control. The parents themselves may simply not have the maturity to deal with having kids. There are no doubt a thousand other reasons as well. Should we force these people to raise their kids, or should the kids be forced to stay with unfit parents? There has to be a safety valve.

I do agree. And not being a parent myself, I'm trying very hard here to be fair. I've worked in a psych/rehab hospital (mid-90s) where some of the teens and even children were nightmares -- and sometimes despite the parents' best efforts.

What worries me in this is "the slippery slope," especially as lives and emotions and long-term repercussions are at stake.

Divorce used to be severely frowned upon. I remember as a kid it was still shocking (except for big-name celebrities). Since the mid-1980s? I've seen/heard of people divorced for the most trivial reasons (she quit jogging with me, will get fat; he just won't pick his socks up from the floor). Now it's easy and convenient; why work it out? Just head for the divorce lawyer. We have a 50% divorce rate now.

I'm very concerned this issue will follow suit. Not everyone needs a really good reason to "rid themselves" of something... :(

[Neverfly]

Not everyone needs a really good reason to "rid themselves" of something... :(

So Very True.

[HenrikOlsen]

But; this whole situation does reinforce something that I have always thought was a failing in our legislative process. That is... laws should be written in a way to explain the problem they are to solve, and how they expect it to be solved. That way, the crimes can be tried and convicted in accordance of the intent of the law rather than the technicalities of the law.
From what I understand, what in the US counts is the letter of the law and where that is left too vague, what counts is precedence as set by previous court decisions.

In Denmark, what counts is the meaning of the law, which is why our laws are accompanied with extensive commentary describing what the intent of the law law is, as interpreted by precedence.

[sarongsong]

...IIRC when the law was first going into effect, it was mentioned as addressing the issues about the endangerment of unwanted newborns..."Total Recall!" :)August 22, 2008
...instead of following the lead of other states, which focus on the abandonment of newborns, lawmakers here wanted to extend the protection to all minors. And in Nebraska, that goes all the way up to age 19.
“All children deserve our protection,” said Sen. Tom White, who helped broaden the measure. “If we save one child from being abused, it’s well, well worth it.”...
State Sen. Arnie Stuthman, who introduced the original bill dealing only with infants, agreed to the compromise after the bill became stalled in debate...
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26353351/)

[tdvance]

We must be careful not to inadvertently encourage irresponsible behaviors [who cares/here's an easy out]. Too many people take advantage of that and the rest of us pay for it.

Possibly, yes. But nothing has shown me that people are not "being careful" and having kids willy nilly simply because they can legally drop them off at safe havens.

Probably true--but I bet some who would otherwise keep the kid and bear the burden, or even go through the red tape of adoption, might leave it at the hospital instead and make it someone else's problem. It's the particularly vile people who, without the hospital option, use a dumpster instead.

[BigDon]

It's the particularly vile people who, without the hospital option, use a dumpster instead.

Or young, ignorant frightened kids. They do that too. Folks that can't even define hypothermia.

[timb]

I think tdvance hit upon that answer. IIRC when the law was first going into effect, it was mentioned as addressing the issues about the endangerment of unwanted newborns.
Now; the article mentions the intent of up to 3 days old. That tells me it's not about raising the child but the dangers of an unwanted pregnancy.

I think there may also be some underlying unmentioned religious ties to this law, but that's probably not a good thing to speculate on.


Safe haven laws are promoted by some as a means of reducing not only infanticide by abandonment but also abortion. Another name for the laws is "Baby Moses" laws, which also suggests a religious connection. The teens dropped off in Nebraska (http://thefocusonthefamily.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/abortion-of-older-children-teens-too/) weren't just happy healthy kids abandoned after an argument. They had issues.

But; this whole situation does reinforce something that I have always thought was a failing in our legislative process. That is... laws should be written in a way to explain the problem they are to solve, and how they expect it to be solved. That way, the crimes can be tried and convicted in accordance of the intent of the law rather than the technicalities of the law.

Well, at least they'd be decided on the technicalities of the explanation of the problem they are to solve, and how they expect it to be solved. :)

[NEOWatcher]

"Total Recall!" :)
Interesting. I must have remembered all the other instances of this law.

It sounds like there was enough interest in the law for newborn abandonment, but the trimmed it down and vagued it up to the point of satisfying enough legislators into accepting it. That, and/or they really didn't know how to address the various issues, and left the door wide open to see what would happen before defining it.

[Matherly]

Now it's easy and convenient; why work it out? Just head for the divorce lawyer. We have a 50% divorce rate now.

:eh:

I know when my parents got divorced about 16 odd years ago it was decidedly inconvient to all involved. Ditto when my dad got another divorce about 2 years ago.

I think people underestimate how much suckage is involved in a divorce.

[Whirlpool]

Divorce is already an option , implanted on a persons mind already IMO.

Just like abortion ... and orphanages.


:neutral:

[PraedSt]

Update

NE safe haven limit reduced to newborns. (NYT) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/22nebraska.html?hp)
In an emergency session, the Nebraska legislature on Friday revised a law permitting parents or guardians to hand children over to state custody without fear of prosecution, limiting its reach to infants up to 30 days old.

Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, is expected to sign the bill Friday afternoon, It will go into effect at 12:01 Saturday morning.

[TheHalcyonYear]

What I think is most unfortunate is that the fact that teenagers were being left there is symptomatic of a very pressing underlying problem. Rather than address the underlying issue, we simply make the expressed behavior illegal. {{sigh}} When will we, as a society, begin to address the issues rather than treating the expressed symptoms.

[Neverfly]

What I think is most unfortunate is that the fact that teenagers were being left there is symptomatic of a very pressing underlying problem. Rather than address the underlying issue, we simply make the expressed behavior illegal. {{sigh}} When will we, as a society, begin to address the issues rather than treating the expressed symptoms.

Because the current trend is to treat people like they don't have brains.

[jfribrg]

I'm not sure I understand why they set the limit at 30 days. This perhaps addresses the issue of a teenage mother hiding her pregnancy and giving up the baby shortly after giving birth. I would have thought that a longer limit, say 1 year would also have served a separate need. I can imagine the circumstances of a young mother intending to keep the baby, but the father skips out when the baby is a few months old and her family has already disowned her for bringing shame on the family name. After a few months she realizes that she can't do it alone but has nobody to help her. Even if there are alternatives, a young scared (and possibly depressed) teenage mother may not understand how to proceed.

The need for services for older children should be addressed separately. From some accounts I have read, these types of services are already available, but the original NE law made it far too easy for the parent to drop the kids off and be gone.

[NEOWatcher]

I'm not sure I understand why they set the limit at 30 days...
It was made pretty clear. But; maybe you are just having a hard time agreeing with that limit.
The original law, enacted earlier this year, was intended to protect newborns from being abandoned or killed by panicked young mothers.
In other words, there really is no clear line where somebody can say somebody stops being able to care for the child, but it is clear to say that somebody won't even start caring for the child.
Therefore...
The need for services for older children should be addressed separately. From some accounts I have read, these types of services are already available, but the original NE law made it far too easy for the parent to drop the kids off and be gone.
So he law never intended for this type of situation. It's only the parents that were able to take unintended advantage of it, rather than go through the other services that were available.

[TheHalcyonYear]

<snip>

The need for services for older children should be addressed separately. From some accounts I have read, these types of services are already available, but the original NE law made it far too easy for the parent to drop the kids off and be gone.
How callous people can be. If it were so easy people would not have traveled all the way from Florida to leave their teenagers there. There is a problem here crying out for attention!! Instead of addressing it, we just tell them to go somewhere else.

Some times I am thoroughly disgusted to be American!!

[PraedSt]

Some times I am thoroughly disgusted to be American!!
Speaking as a non-American, you have a lot of plus points. More than most. ;)

[Gillianren]

So he law never intended for this type of situation. It's only the parents that were able to take unintended advantage of it, rather than go through the other services that were available.

My understanding, having listened to some of the testimony on the subject, was that, in a lot of cases, the other services weren't available. At least not to a lot of the people who ended up using this law.

[NEOWatcher]

My understanding, having listened to some of the testimony on the subject, was that, in a lot of cases, the other services weren't available. At least not to a lot of the people who ended up using this law.
Yeah, I don't know who was in what situation because the media didn't dig too deep on that aspect. I guess they figured the parents struggle trying (or maybe some lack of trying) wasn't really part of the story. (Well, there might be a story, but no real shock value)

[Gillianren]

On NPR, they played the testimony of a woman who had tried every social service she could find for her son, who I believe had a pretty serious mental illness. But she made too much for one program, and he was too sick for another, and another didn't have the funds to take on another person, and so on. She felt the only thing she could do for him was to leave him at a hospital.

[Antares7]

I posted in wrong thread. Sorry.