Safe Haven

November 14, 2008 1:45 PM

"Please don't bring your teenager to Nebraska," Gov. Dave Heineman told CNN. "Think of what you are saying. You are saying you no longer support them. You no longer love them."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing (78 comments total)

If only this was just the Onion article it sounds like it is.
posted by redsparkler at 1:48 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

That's the whole idea, isn't it?
posted by mullingitover at 1:50 PM on November 14, 2008

Oh cool, they do take teenagers.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:54 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

Why did Nebraska choose to leave out the age limit when writing the law when all other states included one? I'm surprised no one was able to forsee this happening.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:54 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Sung to the tune of "Grandma got run over by a reindeer".
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 1:55 PM on November 14, 2008 [4 favorites]

What's the matter, Nebraska? Writing checks that your sanctimonious culture of life can't cash?
posted by billysumday at 1:55 PM on November 14, 2008 [46 favorites]

What happened, Nebraska? Simply dumping them at Boys Town got too difficult?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:57 PM on November 14, 2008

Why did Nebraska choose to leave out the age limit when writing the law when all other states included one?

They interviewed someone on NPR about it this morning, and it came down to the fact that they couldn't decide on where to limit the age. The original one was for 72 hours, but they argued about the child that is 5 days old, or 3 months old, etc. So they left it out, and this is what they are left with. Apparently though, the parents abandoning their children there are still liable for child support payments, which it sounds like they will be following up on.
posted by chrisroberts at 1:58 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Oh, yeah. And to make this all the more awesome, there's a very recent Georgia connection:

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A woman drove her troubled 12-year-old son from Georgia to Nebraska and abandoned him under the state's unique safe-haven law, which parents have used to leave 20 children at hospitals since the law took effect in July. The boy, from the Atlanta suburb of Smyrna, was dropped off at BryanLGH Medical Center East in Lincoln on Saturday night, said Todd Landry of the Department of Health and Human Services.

He is the third child from out of state brought to Nebraska to be abandoned under the law; abandoned children from Iowa and Michigan have been returned to their home states.
posted by grabbingsand at 1:58 PM on November 14, 2008

According to what I heard on NPR this morning, the legislature couldn't decide exactly where the cut-off should be so they just left it as "child". They are currently trying to re-write it to only cover newborns (three days old and younger).

This is heartbreaking. How are any of those kids ever going to feel safe or live a normal life?
posted by JoanArkham at 2:00 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I tried dropping myself off, but since I'm 38 they told me no.

Actually, I think people are better off dropping off kids of any age if they feel they are being forced to. Beats driving your car into the drink with the kids in back.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:06 PM on November 14, 2008

How are any of those kids ever going to feel safe or live a normal life?

It is heartbreaking, but presumably the circumstances under which they would live were they not dropped off would be similarly, if not more dismal.
posted by snofoam at 2:11 PM on November 14, 2008

I'm singing it to "Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys."
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:11 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

About 90 percent of the children dropped off so far have received mental health services in the past.

That's a key part of this. I have an on-line acquaintance who "abandoned" her mentally ill teenage daughter at a hospital. She loves her daughter, but there was no other way for her to get the support services she needed.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:12 PM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]

Damn, I was hoping I could keep this as a be-all-end-all threat for my future kids.

"If you bring the car back after midnight, I'm going to wake you up at 6am for a one way road trip to Nebraska. Got it buster?"
posted by JimmyJames at 2:13 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

this is beyond my comprehension. the articles suggest the drop-offs have to do w/them not being able to get mental health care for the kids, but there are no examples cited to make this seem real to me.

parents are seriously dropping off kids with no intention of returning? o.O
posted by aliceinreality at 2:15 PM on November 14, 2008

I agree, if those parents can even contemplate abandoning their children, you know those kids are almost always better off without them. They are probably already emotionally abandoned at home by the parents anyway. And I applaud Nebraska for doing something like this, even if it was a mistake.
posted by brneyedgrl at 2:15 PM on November 14, 2008

How are any of those kids ever going to feel safe or live a normal life?

Either through a lot of hard work and support from people that do care, or not at all. Though remarkably, in my experience, the former happens more often.
posted by Roman Graves at 2:19 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Since when has Captain Obvious been the Governor of Nebraska?
posted by Waitwhat at 2:20 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

This is heartbreaking. How are any of those kids ever going to feel safe or live a normal life?

I have a hard time imagining that these children were living safe or normal lives up to that point. The first partThe only thing that this law has really exposed is that people are out there who would take them up on the offer. A heartbreaking look at the psyche of parenting on the deep end, if you will.

I'll take a contrarian view, that Nebraska should let the law stand as written. The plains states are habitually losing young people to opportunities and cultures on the coast, and it was a good symbolic measure to show their young citizens and the nation that children are indeed welcome in Nebraska. Instead, the governor has repeated something that might as well be the motto on highway signs:

Welcome to Nebraska
Please don't take your teenager here

posted by pwnguin at 2:21 PM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]

aliceinreality: " the articles suggest the drop-offs have to do w/them not being able to get mental health care for the kids, but there are no examples cited to make this seem real to me."

I took "'Do not judge me as a parent. I love my son and my son knows that... There is just no help. There hasn't been any help,'" to mean that, but it isn't explicit.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:22 PM on November 14, 2008

Since when has Captain Obvious been the Governor of Nebraska?

Since January 20th, 2005.
posted by gman at 2:23 PM on November 14, 2008

presumably the circumstances under which they would live were they not dropped off would be similarly, if not more dismal

Yes, I suppose that's true. Ugh.

I need to go apologize to my parents for being a crappy teenager now.
posted by JoanArkham at 2:24 PM on November 14, 2008

Better dropped off than kicked out. My grandfather was kicked out of the house at 14, told he was old enough to make his own way in the world. He probably would have preferred to be taken to a hospital in Nebraska.
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:27 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

Ah, the human condition.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:29 PM on November 14, 2008

They declared me unfit to live said into that great void my soul'd be hurled
They wanted to know why I did what I did
Well sir I guess there's just a meanness in this world
posted by mandal at 2:29 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

More information on Bastardette's blog, including a list to date of abandoned kids and who dumped them:

Children of the corn: Nebraska's Dumped Generation
posted by longsleeves at 2:40 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Pets are being abandoned all across the country as well.
posted by gman at 2:42 PM on November 14, 2008

parents are seriously dropping off kids with no intention of returning? o.O

While it may seem shocking to contemporary sensibilities, the idea of child abandonment is pretty much a constant thread throughout Western history, beginning with the socially acceptable practice of exposure in Ancient Greece and continuing right on through to the Twentieth Century, with such notable stops as foundling hospitals, government-run orphanages, and the well-known American orphan trains (run as recently as the 1920s). Frankly, I'm not so much surprised at the Nebraska abandonment cases, but, rather, at how few there have been up to now.
posted by Chrischris at 2:49 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

the good old days.
posted by nervousfritz at 2:53 PM on November 14, 2008

It's obvious none of you has ever MET a teenager.

*shudder*
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:57 PM on November 14, 2008 [7 favorites]

pwnguin, I kind of feel the same way. If it's already that bad for a kid, done properly, this program could actually get some of them help.

Better to make services available that would help them sooner and keep them in their families if possible, of course.

The fascination of this story is that it turns over a rock that most of us ignore, exposes what's happening to a lot of families, some who were always doomed, some who might have done better with help. Changing the program to just replace the rock seems like the wrong move. It could be a teachable moment and a spur to change, instead of a reason for us to just cover our eyes and run away.
posted by emjaybee at 2:58 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

It is tragic, but I'm of the opinion that all states should have this for all people under the legal age of majority. If a parent doesn't have the resources or temperament to keep a kid safe, fed, and healthy, then we as a society should step up and do something to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

Perhaps then people would actually get a feel for how bad some of the problems in our country are. Perhaps people would start to understand why we need to pay livable wages, why we need universal health care, why parenting classes should be a regular part of prenatal and postnatal care, why the "right to life" propaganda machine should maybe worry a little bit more about what happens after those kids are born.

But then, I'm a pinko...so, ya know, your mileage may vary.

All that said; if Florida had had a "return your kid here" kiosk...gods know my mother would have dropped me off when I hit 13...and nobody could have blamed her. I should call an apologize. Again.
posted by dejah420 at 3:05 PM on November 14, 2008 [21 favorites]

affordable health care = socialism
posted by matteo at 3:07 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

It's a crime that the richest country in the world can't even provide basic healthcare for it's needy citizens. There are always going to be poverty and the poor amoung us. We need to take care of them. National healthcare would never be perfect but to those without any insurance it would be something.
posted by brneyedgrl at 3:20 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

"...mentally ill teenage daughter...there was no other way for her to get the support services she needed."

This is a huge part of it, I'm sure. I'm not from Nebraska, I live in a place with socialized medicine, and we still have wait lists of over a year for some mental health services.

Often, the family has to be in complete crisis or meltdown before anything gets done, and the lack of services/lack of access is becoming a huge contributing facor.
posted by never used baby shoes at 3:25 PM on November 14, 2008

MrMoonPie: He probably would have preferred to be taken to a hospital in Nebraska.

Probably not when your grandfather was 14.
posted by brennen at 3:26 PM on November 14, 2008

Coming to theaters summer 2009: John Carpenter's Escape from Nebraska.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 3:33 PM on November 14, 2008

Parents who abandon their kids should be sterilized as part of the deal.
posted by maxwelton at 3:34 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

And while you're at the hospital, don't forget to spay or neuter your pets self!
posted by not_on_display at 3:36 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

"Please don't bring your teenager to Nebraska" is, coincidentally, one of the finalists for the 2009 Nebraska Tourism Council slogans.
posted by spock at 3:40 PM on November 14, 2008

Nebraska has a unicameral form of legislature, so they only get half as much done as your average State Government does each year. (Some would argue that this is a good thing.) However, what it normally means is that Nebraska waits until 45 (or so) other States in the Union decide to address some issue, and then they decide that it is important in Nebraska. Then, they cut and paste from the other States' statute language. And sometimes they forget to paste some important/useful parts, which leads to them being the laughingstock of the nation.
posted by spock at 3:44 PM on November 14, 2008 [4 favorites]

Jebus H....these people shouldn't even be allowed pets.
posted by RussHy at 3:46 PM on November 14, 2008

They interviewed someone on NPR about it this morning, and it came down to the fact that they couldn't decide on where to limit the age. The original one was for 72 hours, but they argued about the child that is 5 days old, or 3 months old, etc. So they left it out, and this is what they are left with.

So the legislators basically said, "Fuck it--not our job to reach a consensus on difficult issues. What, us compromise?"

Great bunch of representatives you've elected there, Nebraska.
posted by [user was fined for this post] at 3:50 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

New license plates, too!
posted by not_on_display at 3:57 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

Count me in with the folks who say that Nebraska shouldn't change its law, but rather the other forty-nine states (and presumably D.C.) should change to match Nebraska.

You know, either that or get socialized health care, including mental health services, for everyone, but with e priority for the children who desperately need it.

To me, if a father drives his son from Georgia to Nebraska, and is willing to give up being able to see that son again (at least for a while) in the hopes that the son might finally get the treatment and care that he needs, that Father has made one of the most difficult choices imaginable, but in his son's best interest given the situation.

Ideally, we'd have the mental health services available to the son in Georgia, so that the kid may remain with his family, but until the national debate on Universal Health Care moves away from Red Dawn territory, this option should be available everywhere, instead of just having Nebraska pay for it.

My 2¢
posted by Navelgazer at 3:59 PM on November 14, 2008 [9 favorites]

Nebraska has a unicameral form of legislature, so they only get half as much done as your average State Government does each year. (Some would argue that this is a good thing.)

In my understanding, bicameral government isn't about easing the workload, but making new laws pass through an additional level of scrutiny. Isn't a unicameral legislature more likely to act as a big rubber stamp of approval for itself?
posted by Navelgazer at 4:01 PM on November 14, 2008

i'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this, because this is probably a variation of the fate of each & every one of those kids who were abandoned.

no surprise that there are shitty parents in the world. i think it takes a really un-shitty one to realize that something--either on their end or on the kid's end--is spiraling out of control and will end badly. i can't imagine that any of those adults slowed down, shoved open the door, pushed out the kid, and popped open a beer to celebrate as they squealed tires zooming away from the hospital. these are cries for help. if we had better mental health care and there wasn't such a stigma attached to what we do have, these kinds of incidents would have a much better chance of never happening.

and i'm rather surprised that anyone would blame the legislators for not limiting the age. yes, it was a mistake, but i'd like to see them keep it that way & for *someone* in the world to come up with viable options for families on the brink of disaster.
posted by msconduct at 4:04 PM on November 14, 2008

From the AP article, the lady has an 18 year old daughter. Doesn't that make her an adult, or adult enough to be too old to drop off? And from the CNN article, how much does a flight from Florida cost? How would you get your kid into that situation where they would be willing to fly with you to Nebraska? Do you trick them, or does the kid realize they'll get help in Nebraska?

As others have already mentioned, there's not a lot of information into the situations behind the drop-offs, and I can't imagine it's simply because the parents' can't manage the kids. Otherwise, how would a rebellious kid be willing to get in a vehicle and get out at a hospital? New-borns and little things that can't dress themselves, let alone walk, they can be left in baskets on doorsteps. But anyone older than 7 or 8 should realize that a one-way trip to the hospital isn't going to end well for them, and they wouldn't get in the car, unless they actually thought they would get some needed help at the end of that ride.

dejah420 - you're my kind of pinko. Not the kind that hands out appropriate jobs to everyone, but thinks everyone should have the right to get proper treatment.

pwnguin - the problem with repopulating a state with the "cast-offs" of society is that you might end up with rugby as a popular pass-time. (Sorry Australia, I know the penal colony population thing is old history, but have a rather basic sense of humor at times) But in all seriousness, a state full of people who need extra help, be it medical or social, will be a state that heavily taxes the more self-reliant and stable. If all other states took care of their in-need populations, it wouldn't be so bad, but one state opting to become the catch-all would lead to a very unbalanced future population.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:05 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

This is another side of the tragedy I write about all the time-- these kids are often the ones who are sent to abusive "tough love" and "boot camp" programs if the parents have any money at all. Of course, now that you can't mortgage your house with a payment plan arranged by these programs, there's starting to be contraction in what long was a huge growth industry in teen incarceration.

However, most of the parents are not evil or uncaring-- they are either at the end of their rope or they have been told that "tough love" is the only way and that includes throwing your child out *for his own good* if he doesn't do what you think he should. *not throwing him out* in fact, is derided as "enabling" or "codependence."

What's absurd is that we have taught a generation of parents that residential treatment or being sent away from home is the answer for messed up teens. The problem is that what actually helps teens with mental illness and addiction is love and support and long term social connections: which is not something you can get by being sent away from everyone you know and put in a harsh institution. Even if you build good relationships in treatment, as soon as it's over, you are back where you started.

The research now shows that the best treatments keep kids with families and only use residential for short periods of stabilization when they are a danger to self or others. The only role long term residential should have is for kids without families who don't have stable foster homes and possibly for long-term unemployable addicts without education and job training. Other than that, the research shows that what matters is not time spent in inpatient but "aftercare." Given this, it's not only cheaper and easier and happier all around typically to keep people at home mostly, it's actually more effective.

That doesn't mean that these parents don't seriously need respite sometimes-- and that needs to be dealt with. But respite for parents doesn't mean therapeutic for child.

We need mental health parity that only pays for the stuff that works-- otherwise, these kids are just going to end up as profit centers for someone. It's disgusting that we don't have a proper, evidence-based mental health system and this is the kind of stuff that results.

In some states, parents actually can't get appropriate psychiatric care for kids once insurance runs out *unless* they turn over custody to the state-- and this is another outrage.

I imagine the latter is something Obama will do something about, as that really only takes a stroke of the pen to fix with legislation.
posted by Maias at 4:06 PM on November 14, 2008 [7 favorites]

Parents who abandon their kids should be sterilized as part of the deal.
posted by maxwelton at 3:34 PM on November 14 [+] [!]

And while you're at the hospital, don't forget to spay or neuter your pets self!
posted by not_on_display at 3:36 PM on November 14 [+] [!]

Seriously? Because after all of the shit that life puts them through, the parents that want to get their children to a place where they can be cared for should be sterilized? Have a little compassion for the human condition. As has already been talked about, a large number of the people who drop their children off are parents of children with mental issues, who probably are too poor to provide adequate care for their children.
posted by Axle at 4:09 PM on November 14, 2008

If you embrace misanthropy early in life, then you can limit the opportunity for humanity to let you down.
posted by belvidere at 4:19 PM on November 14, 2008 [4 favorites]

"which leads to them being the laughingstock of the nation."

Clearly, you've never been to Arkansas.
posted by oddman at 4:27 PM on November 14, 2008

Seriously?

Sure. It's not like we don't already have more than enough people around. Seriously, if you're at the point where you're abandoning your kids to the state (for whatever reason, be it mental or financial problems) it would seem to be in society's best interest to see you don't have any more.
posted by maxwelton at 4:30 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Kids born since 1973 don't have to listen to their mom casually mention, "of course if abortion had been legal back then...". Perhaps someday we can raise a generation of kids that never has to hear a parent say "I never wanted to keep you, that's why I beat you".
posted by nomisxid at 4:37 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm from Nebraska. It's nice to be in the national news for once! And, no, we can't see Russia from here--that's the other -aska state.

For each of these teenage safe haven stories, I imagine there's a pretty grim tale of failed parenting or failed social services or both. But as we become aware of them each time the media pounces on the next story about an abandoned teen, the talk isn't about the earlier failures--it's about this law and only this law.

So let's have a dialogue about why parents feel compelled to take advantage of this unique-in-the-country law. Not just mock this crazy state each time someone reaches the end of his or her rope.
posted by jepler at 4:52 PM on November 14, 2008 [5 favorites]

If you didn't catch the Bastardette blog entry that longsleeves linked above, it's pretty illuminating. Those of you lobbying for sterilization ought to take a gander. A sizable percentage of the kids being dumped were not in the custody of their birth parents to begin with--they were adoptees, state wards, or in kinship care.

I already know about the guy who had dumped all nine of his kids at once, but it was still a shock to see the Sept. 24th entry in the Bastardette list.

One couple who dumped a teen had their other children removed from their custody last month. Apparently they wanted to adopt a (now) 10-year-old but were told they couldn't unless they were willing to adopt his older brother as well. The couple agreed, then dumped the older boy... sort of like those "collectors" who buy Happy Meals for the toy, then throw the food away, I guess. I feel a little sick now.
posted by cirocco at 5:41 PM on November 14, 2008

it came down to the fact that they couldn't decide on where to limit the age. The original one was for 72 hours, but they argued about the child that is 5 days old, or 3 months old, etc. So they left it out, and this is what they are left with.

A classic Sorites paradox. This looks like a job for a philosopher.
posted by stargell at 5:50 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Times are tough all over I suppose.
posted by nola at 6:13 PM on November 14, 2008

The biggest argument for universal mental (and medical) care isn't just these cruelties, it's that there's so much waste, too; the patchwork of social services, churches, city or state programs, fostercare, hospitals, and schools is a crazy bass-ackwards approach to such a huge problem. Florida outright loses kids in its system, but I'm sure they're not the only ones. Huge amounts of money, and huge numbers of lives, just buried in the nonsensical mess that is our approach to poverty and mental illness. It's amazing there aren't more kids being dumped, really; I'm sure geography is all that prevents it.

How much smaller would our prisons be, how many fewer homeless would we have, if we took this problem seriously?
posted by emjaybee at 6:23 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

Even with "services", living with a mentally ill teenager is hell. I'll bet that a sizeable number of people who have teens with a serious mental illness at one point or another just wish that they could give the kid back.

Single parents who are just scraping by and have other children in the household (who also crave attention) are especially at risk. I wouldn't be judging these people until you've seen what their lives are like.
posted by leftcoastbob at 6:34 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I already know about the guy who had dumped all nine of his kids at once,

I busted out laughing when I read that. That image is just too fucking funny. I'm sorry, I know it's mean, but that is just fucking hilarious.
posted by jayder at 6:50 PM on November 14, 2008

I'll take a contrarian view, that Nebraska should let the law stand as written.

I'm struggling with this one a lot. I don't even know what kinds of government-or-otherwise safety nets are in place for kids who need help, or if families know they exist; or if they are in any way adequately serving the level of need out there. But I think the outcome of this policy--and particularly its unexpectedness--should make us want to look closer at safety nets for kids older than newborns/infants. Perhaps those systems are indeed out there doing what they are supposed to be doing, but this would seem to indicate that at least some parents don't know about them or don't have access to them.

I guess some people see this is a problem because they feel parents might abuse the system, but whatever I feel about the parents' motives, I would hope that we err on the side of protecting children, who hold no responsibility for their circumstances and thus shouldn't be punished for them. If Nebraska does make a change to the policy, I would hope they clearly articulate that there is indeed help for older kids and how it can be gotten.
posted by troybob at 7:04 PM on November 14, 2008

It's a trap! They're going to adopt all these kids out to gay couples.
posted by Bokononist at 7:40 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I wish there were a safe place providing all the basic necessities of life for people to blamelessly deliver their human dependents of any age in order to protect them from greater harm.

If it collected support payments that wouldn't break the surrendering caregivers but kept them responsible, required caregivers to attend classes on how to cope with and manage life with (or without) a dependent, and/or provided temporary haven for dependents while caregivers get their acts together? Even better. If it prosecuted caregivers proven to have endangered, harmed, or otherwise abused their dependents prior to drop-off? Perfect.

The system is broken. There are many frustrated, helpless, hopeless, and even just plain bad caregivers out there who can't (or won't) afford private-sector solutions and are under-served by the public sector. Their situations become more untenable and their dependents suffer.

I think it could be solved with some organisational repositioning, some streamlining of programs and funding channels, and, most of all, by recognising that - regardless the reason a caregiver has for abandoning a dependent - this is going to happen and their welfare is of greater concern than bureaucratic or geographic boundaries.
posted by batmonkey at 7:41 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Parents who abandon their kids should be sterilized as part of the deal.

Hey, how about women who get abortions, too?
posted by chimaera at 8:26 PM on November 14, 2008

I'm sure I'm not the only parent whose child was in a daycare center slash preschcool where most of the children had never held a book in their hands prior to being in "school." Our child went to daycare in a poor USA neighborhood. (She's a stellar H.S. Junior, now, BTW)

I read on the Internet today, and I don't know if it's true, that 80% of all families in the USA had not purchased a book in the previous year.

In other words, most families in America do not nurture their children well. I, of course, am concentrating on the "intellectual" aspect of their upbringing, but, feeding kids junk food and not encouraging physical activity, and, especially, in my mind, not encouraging their active involvement with the natural world, is crippling their development as healthy individuated and socially acculturated members of our potentially healthy society.

No wonder that so many thirteen-year-olds are so fucked-up that their poor parents are giving up on them and dropping them off in Nebraska.
posted by kozad at 8:34 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

I'm pretty sure my mom would have done the same to me, that is, abandoned me at a hospital, if it wasn't for my dad. She never wanted me, and never she let me forget that.
I guess I was too much to handle after skipping 1 day of school and becoming sexually active. I was 16, fer cripe's sake. I was normal! My mom also attacked me once physically, then called the cops on me, as if I started it. I then ended up moving out on my own. That led to another estrangement.
Maybe these teens are getting a break from their parents' crap. Maybe not. I hope to god that they're taken care of in the upmost way. I still don't communicate with my mother, even after 7 1/2 years. Maybe some of these kids are getting a break from their unstable/abusive/depressed parents. I'm all for getting kids help, but having gone through counseling from age 16 to about age 27, I now realize that typical counseling does not help. I really does not.
posted by babybuns at 9:20 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

The folks saying all 50 states should have this law are misinformed: There already exists a mechanism for abandoning your child in most states. It's called giving up your child for adoption, and it's not new.

These "safe haven" laws are a recent phenomenon intended to entice those women and girls who give birth in toilets etc from dumping their newborn in a dumpster or leaving it in a toilet or otherwise walking away from it. Remember the stories from some years back about the girl who gave birth to a baby boy in a toilet at her senior prom? She left the bathroom and went back to the dance floor. Whatever your judgment about this girl may be, she was in a state of denial to the point of dissociating what she'd just done.

The biggest problem with "safe haven" laws is that women and girls who give birth in such circumstances are in profound denial that they are even pregnant, or that the child is human, or that the pregnancy and birth are anything but a temporary problem to be overcome by looking the other way.

These "safe haven" laws do nothing to address this type of dissociative pathology, and instead wind up--as anyone with common sense could have predicted and in fact did predict--catching only the newborns and toddlers and teenagers of parents who are NOT in denial and therefore likely NOT at risk for otherwise killing them.
posted by ImproviseOrDie at 7:08 AM on November 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

While the situation is heartbreaking, the governor's quote is hilarious.
posted by graventy at 8:27 AM on November 15, 2008

I guess some people see this is a problem because they feel parents might abuse the system,

The reasonable look at Nebraska and come to the conclusion that not only should the present law NOT be changed, but the other 49 states should adopt similar laws. Unfortunately as this last election so clearly proved to me, there is a large segment of our population that has no ability to empathize. These are the people that would look at the situation playing out in Nebraska and conclude that some parents are lazy and shiftless and given half a chance an enormous number of people would abandon their teenagers willy-nilly.

It is similiar to welfare-- the reasonable person would think, "People who are forced to live on welfare are at their wits end. It is degrading and unpleasant and only someone who has no other recourse would stand in a line all day to receive a tiny check from the state." But another segment of society imagines welfare recipients as lazy and shiftless and given half a chance an enormous number of people would abandon their jobs. Usually the non-empathizers spout-off about self-reliance until something happens to them personally, and then they start making demands on the government to step in and fix the situation.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:56 AM on November 15, 2008 [1 favorite]

kozad said: I read on the Internet today, and I don't know if it's true, that 80% of all families in the USA had not purchased a book in the previous year.

Anecdotal...however, I would absolutely believe that. Most of our neighbors do not have visible books in their house. People are astounded when they come in to ours and we have hundreds and hundreds of books everywhere. There is no flat surface in this house that doesn't end up collecting books.

My son is turning 6 next month, and when we've been handing invites to people, they all ask "What is he in to?" and I say "Ya know, books are your best bet. He loves to read." And I give a list of authors or series that he's currently reading, and they all look at me like I've grown a second head. It's mind boggling.
posted by dejah420 at 11:50 AM on November 15, 2008

September 24, 2008:
female, 1
male, 6
male, 7
female, 9
male, 11
female, 13
female, 14
male, 15
male, 17
Dumper: father
Place: Creighton UMC

Some guy dumped ALL NINE OF HIS CHILDREN? You can't tell me all of them were mentally ill.
posted by desjardins at 3:20 PM on November 15, 2008

>>>Parents who abandon their kids should be sterilized as part of the deal.
posted by maxwelton at 3:34 PM on November 14 [+] [!]

>>>And while you're at the hospital, don't forget to spay or neuter your pets self!
posted by not_on_display at 3:36 PM on November 14 [+] [!]

>>Seriously?

>Sure. It's not like we don't already have more than enough people around. Seriously, if you're at the point where you're abandoning your kids to the state (for whatever reason, be it mental or financial problems) it would seem to be in society's best interest to see you don't have any more.
posted by maxwelton at 7:30 PM on November 14 [1 favorite +] [!]


Are you suggesting/advocating:

A) forced sterilization? If so, that sounds pretty dangerous to me.
B) voluntary sterilization? Not sure how I feel about promoting that. [Slippery slope / foot in the door argument.]


I'm pretty sure my mom would have done the same to me, that is, abandoned me at a hospital.

Do you think you would have been better off if she had?
posted by Bort at 7:34 PM on November 15, 2008

Dejah420: It is tragic, but I'm of the opinion that all states should have this for all people under the legal age of majority. If a parent doesn't have the resources or temperament to keep a kid safe, fed, and healthy, then we as a society should step up and do something to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

Then is a 13 year old a child or not?

At what age and under what circumstances do we as a society turn our backs on a child, or when it's easier redefine them as no longer a child and leave them to make their own decisions?

See earlier
posted by pianomover at 1:39 AM on November 16, 2008

pianomover, we're talking about apples and oranges.

But the two are not related. In one case, a 13 year old girl has been in pain her entire life. The state is trying to force her to have an operation that is known to have limited success, and the very best outcome would be more years of never ending pain. In that case, I argue that the girls right to decide her fate outweigh the state's rights to protect her from herself.


In the other case; minors are being delivered to the state, and state intervention is being requested on behalf of the minor.

To suggest that parental drops can be in any way equated to a bioethical decision about the right to die is ridiculous, no matter that the participants may share a demographic age group.
posted by dejah420 at 1:50 AM on November 16, 2008

Reading the above quote, I can't help but think, "Well, yes, telling the kids their parents don't love them is THE ENTIRE POINT of ABANDONING THEM." Clearly, they don't WANT to be showing love to those kids. Duuuuuuuuh.

I'm not saying it's nice, it's just the truth.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:49 AM on November 17, 2008

There's no "duuuuuh" about it, jenfullmoon. It just isn't that simple. Yes, some parents are abandoning their children because they don't want to be parents to them, but others do it because they don't see what else they can do.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:14 AM on November 17, 2008