|
Whatever happened to the decorum and civility at graduation ceremonies? Reporter transported back to Mesozoic Era in fun dinosaur show at Rabobank Arena Latest Charles Manson prison photo The navel fluff phenomenon explained Today's youth more into music than sex Cancel Christmas: The date's all wrong, say scientists Smile, it's good for me You know the economy sucks when ... GM boss pleads poverty, eats at Quiznos Depressing Christmas cards June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Safe haven or easy way out?
A 5-year-old boy last night became the 35th child dropped off in Nebraska as part of that state's safe-haven law. The wording in the law is vague and doesn't mention an age, only 'child.' Thus, 'children' as old as 17 have been abandoned by their parents or grandparents to be cared for by the state. In a few cases, the child didn't even know they were being abandoned. Lawmakers are meeting today in a special session to work on changing the law so it applies to infants only. Allowing young, scared, unprepared mothers to drop their newborns off at hospitals and fire stations is one thing. Dropping your teenage kid off because you can't be bothered to care for them anymore is something else entirely. 4 comments from 4 users
1
posted by
PinkMartini
on Nov 14, 2008 at 11:03 AM
If these children are unwanted and at risk for neglect and abuse, then why not allow them to be dropped off? The children, however old, probably need to be removed from their home anyways, and this is at least a non confrontational way for that to happen. If the children are old enough to speak, then it won't be anonymous, and the parents/guardians should have to relinquish their parental rights entirely. posted by
ghostriter
on Nov 14, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I agree with pink. Children who are unwanted for whatever reason should not be forced to stay in a potentially abusive situation. However, I still cannot fathom how a parent could just get tired of being a parent and dump their child somewhere. But then, I can't even understand how someone could do it to their pets, so dumping their kids is even more unconcionable to me. I'd love to have a little boy; just send him on over. posted by
Mystral
on Nov 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I agree with both ghostriter and pink. Heaven knows these children are better off. I can't begin to imagine the pain these teenage kids feel over having someone they love dump them off like that. I just don't understand what this world is coming to. I would think the powers that be in Nebraska would rather these kids be safe with them as opposed to the horrible alternative of finding them dead in their home while arresting the parents. It's just sad all the way around. posted by
sagefever
on Nov 14, 2008 at 12:25 PM
It is hard to understand why anyone would do this,but it might be more than just "dumping them",money ,failing health are all possible reasons... 35 children is a indication that some parents are up against a wall,mentally or physically. Better dropped off than harmed.
1
Advertisement |