Nebraska safe haven law

[Blog]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/neb...ven/index.html

You can drop off any age kid in Nebraska and walk away, no questions asked. Its being criticized because people are dropping off teenagers. However, instead of changing the law to only cover infants, I think it should be expanded and other states follow Nebraska's lead.

How is it better to force a kid to stay with a parent who doesn't want them than to move them to a group or foster home? In my mind you're better off with someone who does want you, ie foster parents. Now maybe there aren't enough foster parents already, but I think it is debatable that a group home is healthier than staying with parents that don't want you.

[Gromgor]

I don't really know exactly how I feel about this issue. On the one hand, it means there's more orphans which means more orphanages that will require money to cover costs. On the other hand it does create a get out of jail free card for people who didn't practice efficient safe sex....

...wait. That's two bad things. There has to be SOMETHING good about this. Right?

Yeah, I'm not going to be all PC on this and say "Well at least the kids will be better off with parents that love them."

Bullshit. Every person that walks up to drop their kid off should, with no questions asked, get the fuck slapped out of them. An orphan because one's parents are dead is one thing. An orphan because their parents were too sorry to be, well...parents. That's something else entirely. It's not the kid's fault. It's societies fault for allowing those assholes to breed AND for creating an sense of wrongness in abortion. There's too many fucking babies in this world already and NOW people get to fuck around and pop a kid out and, with no questions asked, put the burden on someone else.

Whether the foster parents accept the burden or not, it in no way diminishes the fact that no questions asked drop off for kids is just fucking stupid.

[Reshad]

The law is meant to protect children from abuse or unhealthy living environments. So far the primary reason that was given (when any was) for dropping of the teenage kids was: "I don't want to be a parent anymore." That is that gets under my skin. If they leave it as children of any age they should institute some requirement to prove that the child is better off without the parents and the parents should then lose all rights to interact with the child(ren) thereafter. Some of those that have dropped them off now want to still be involved with the kids, but not take care of them.

[Sekla]

I haven't followed the issue much in depth, but being from Nebraska... I guess I can't complain much about it. From the stories that I've heard about it (the teenage situations), the kids that were dropped off, were unruly brats that the parents could not control due to the fact that the GOVERNMENT has taken away the parents' right to properly execute discipline on said child.

My 12 yo has recently started mouthing off to me, and telling me to "shut up". Without delving into my first initiative to slap the dog fuck out of her, I just told her that if her attitude and demeanor towards me does not change.. that she may also be taking a permanent vacation at our local hospital. We as parents are not allowed to properly take control of the situation, without Health and Human Services knocking down our door. Most people would just slap the shit out of a mouthy kid. I wanted to, but then... I'd be in trouble.

What the fuck is wrong with this world? What happened to the age old saying "Respect your elders"?

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Sekla
What happened to the age old saying "Respect your elders"?

For most people, respect for their elders is taught by corporal punishment. You can't expect a child to grow up respectful all by himself (/herself). So if corporal punishment - and that means smacking, not beheading... it's always amusing when people confuse CORPORAL and CAPITAL punishment - is outlawed, then it's pretty hard to blame the parents when their children grow up anarchic. Unfortunately governments never seem to be able to distinguish between loving discipline and outright abuse, and end up legislating against the one and forbidding the other.

[Marah]

Originally posted by Rosuav
Unfortunately governments never seem to be able to distinguish between loving discipline and outright abuse, and end up legislating against the one and forbidding the other.

You know why? There is a fine line in between loving discipline and outright abuse. A parent who lightly smacks their child on the butt out of anger is pretty much abusing the kid. In contrast, a parent who is calm, patient and spanking with a wooden spoon is not necessarily being abusive.

Also, there are certain cultural practices which in the average American family would be considered abusive, yet in the cultural context are not.

The issue is too complicated to legislate because "abuse' is case-by-case. It's really all about motivation.

As for the safe haven law, I dunno. Kids can be aggravating, and I wonder what can be put into place to prevent families from altogether giving up.

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Marah
You know why? There is a fine line in between loving discipline and outright abuse.

Indeed, and so it's pretty much doomed to fail whenever anyone tries to legislate it.