Come on kids get in the car

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/ap/4/safe_haven

A Michigan mother drove roughly 12 hours to Omaha, so she could abandon her 13-year-old son at a hospital under the state's unique safe-haven law, Nebraska officials said Monday. The boy from the Detroit area is the second teenager from outside Nebraska and 18th child overall abandoned in the state since the law took effect in July. "I certainly recognize and can commiserate and empathize with families across our state and across the country who are obviously struggling with parenting issues, but this is not the appropriate way of dealing with them, whether you're in Nebraska or whether you're in another state," said Todd Landry, who heads the state's Department of Health and Human Services' division of children and family services. There was no sign the boy was in immediate danger before he was abandoned early Monday, but an investigation into the boy's situation was still continuing, Landry said. The boy has been placed in an emergency shelter. Landry said the family doesn't appear to have ties to Nebraska and he wasn't sure if the family had sought help in Michigan first. State officials have met with the boy's mother, Landry said but wouldn't immediately address her reasons for leaving her son. He said he believed the boy's parents were married but wasn't sure if the father agreed to the decision. "Regardless of why or how, our focus remains on the safety of the child," he said. Creighton University Medical Center spokeswoman Lisa Stites said she did not know any additional details about the boy abandoned at her hospital early Monday. Last week, a 14-year-old girl from Iowa was left at an Omaha hospital by her grandparents. The girl has since been returned to her family. Nebraska's safe-haven law is unlike similar laws in that it allows anyone, not just a parent, to drop off a child, of any age, at any state-licensed hospital without fear of prosecution for abandonment. The law doesn't absolve anyone of other charges like abuse or neglect. In Nebraska, several of the parents or guardians who have left children cited uncontrollable behavioral problems. An out-of-work widower who left nine of his 10 children said he simply felt overwhelmed by his responsibilities. That man, Gary Staton, has asked a judge to allow him to visit his children. State officials have stressed that the safe-haven law should be used only for children in immediate danger; some worry the broadly written law could make the state a dumping ground for unwanted children. State officials have said parents and caregivers need to understand there is no guarantee an abandoned child could be returned to them if they change their minds. The have encouraged parents to seek other resources before resorting to abandonment. Lawmakers have spoken about the need to re-examine the law, but the Legislature doesn't reconvene until January. Gov. Dave Heineman has been reluctant to call a rare special session. Landry declined to comment on whether a special session was needed, but he did say Monday that a new law is needed to specifically address infants in danger. Two children coming from out of state is clear evidence changes are needed, he said. "We need to get back to the intent of the law," he said. "The intent of the law was always the protection of newborns in immediate danger of being harmed."

This law seemed like a good idea at the time, but maybe they need to look at adding a couple restrictions.

We all know that abstinence sex education is the only sex education needed. ;)

On a serious note, this is a sign of a few things: 1) We need better sex education. Some condoms would do wonders for this problem 2) Some people can't train dogs much less deal with raising kids. 3) We need better social infrastructure. That includes affordable day care, better after school programs, as well as accessible mental health aid.

I can see the evil right wing anti condom speach if these were piles of newborns, but dumping teens seems more like parents dumping their problems on someone else once their kids crap is no longer cute.

Think of the threats occurring in dysfunctional families all over the country:

Parent: "You'd better act right!"
Kid: "Or what?"
Parent: "I'll drag your sorry self to NEBRASKA and leave you there...that's what!"

Clem

I was up in Nebraska not too long ago and found it surprisingly nice. Weird law, though.

And no, I did not leave my boy there.

ClemSparks said:Think of the threats occurring in dysfunctional families all over the country: Parent: "You'd better act right!" Kid: "Or what?" Parent: "I'll drag your sorry self to NEBRASKA and leave you there...that's what!"

wait when did that law go into effect? That sounds exactly like my parents!

Set up a safe haven to dump kids and be surprized that people dump kids. Who could have seen it coming?

ClemSparks wrote: Think of the threats occurring in dysfunctional families all over the country: Parent: "You'd better act right!" Kid: "Or what?" Parent: "I'll drag your sorry self to NEBRASKA and leave you there...that's what!" Clem

When I was 16, my response would have absolutely been:

"I'll be waiting in the car."

How on earth do you dump a teenager? My son would just catch a bus home (or to grandma's, or the closest Fudruckers, depending on his mood at the time).

Many of today's teenagers are pretty useless at the whole "self-reliance" thing.

J

ClemSparks wrote: Think of the threats occurring in dysfunctional families all over the country: Parent: "You'd better act right!" Kid: "Or what?" Parent: "I'll drag your sorry self to NEBRASKA and leave you there...that's what!" Clem

okay, I have survived rasing two kids in a divorced home. The son always lived with me and saw things from my side. The younger daughter did not, no rules at her mother's place, she ran the streets at 13.

But when she became a HS Senior and her drug abusing mother and step father could not afford to teach her to drive or buy a prom dress or anyhting that the state did not provide, she begged to move back and live under the rules. She is now a healthy and happy college Junior.

What makes families dysfunctional? The system that perpetuates itself. By allowing lawless , rule less homes. And punishes a father if he tries to enforce basic rules for a kid's protection.

Get the gobment out of homes unless there is true abuse!

okay off my soap box...

hmm, well in a world where kids can have their parents locked up if they dont like the discipline being dished out, people taking advantage of dump laws isnt really surprising. Not that I'm an advocate of any sort, of beating kids senseless, but an occasional attitude adjustment is not always a bad thing. Expressions like "Im gonna knock that wiseass smile right off your face" and "do you want me to get the wooden spoon?" and the all fear inspiring "Ground you?? oh no, im gonna beat you so hard you'll wish you'd never been born!" were common when I was growing up. I never actually got beat, (okay there was the ONE time, but i wasn't actually damaged physically) but there was no doubt what could happen if I didn't change my attitude and straighten up. These weren't random or frequent, but valid responses to situations that called for it. It was that fear of consequence that kept me in line, and where i grew up, I could've easily have turned to a life far different, and far worse than what I'm living today.

Which South Park episode is it? The ADD ( Christina Agulera monster ... ) where in the end there is a doctor that can correct all your kids behavior problems in a few minutes!

There is a real ad on Ohio TV that touts the same promise!

South Park is what I imagine, the Dr with the ruler!

Wally wrote: I can see the evil right wing anti condom speach if these were piles of newborns, but dumping teens seems more like parents dumping their problems on someone else once their kids crap is no longer cute.

I was thinking "root cause analysis" there.

Condom? No brat kid to be dumped. Course, I'm not addressing the parents skills either.

Let's see...it's about a 21 hour ride...if I bring the trailer, I can kill two birds with one stone...hmmm....

http://omaha.craigslist.org/cto/849793702.html

SoloSonett wrote:

ClemSparks wrote: Think of the threats occurring in dysfunctional families all over the country: Parent: "You'd better act right!" Kid: "Or what?" Parent: "I'll drag your sorry self to NEBRASKA and leave you there...that's what!" Clem

okay, I have survived rasing two kids in a divorced home. The son always lived with me and saw things from my side. The younger daughter did not, no rules at her mother's place, she ran the streets at 13. But when she became a HS Senior and her drug abusing mother and step father could not afford to teach her to drive or buy a prom dress or anyhting that the state did not provide, she begged to move back and live under the rules. She is now a healthy and happy college Junior. What makes families dysfunctional? The system that perpetuates itself. By allowing lawless , rule less homes. And punishes a father if he tries to enforce basic rules for a kid's protection. Get the gobment out of homes unless there is true abuse! okay off my soap box...

+1 gazillion. I understand that kids should not be beaten. I aalso do NOT want the gubmint telling me I can't discipline my kid if she gets out of line.

The Nebraska law was written with good intentions but as with so many ultra liberal laws (current subprime mortgage mess, anyone?) it has been interpreted too broadly and is having unintended repercussions.

Jensenman wrote: snip blah blah blah blah as with so many ultra liberal laws (current subprime mortgage mess, anyone?) Blah blah blah blah

Oh Berkeley...there goes the thread!

All in fun ;)

Clem

Jensenman wrote: The Nebraska law was written with good intentions but as with so many ultra liberal laws (current subprime mortgage mess, anyone?) it has been interpreted too broadly and is having unintended repercussions.

Everyone knows Nebraska is a bastion of ultra-liberalism.

Glad you recognize that, Baxter.

You missed the point: the law was written as a way for parents to absolve themselves of their responsibility for a child and place it on the state. If that's not ultraliberalism, I don't know what is. What state it was written in is immaterial.

It was intended to apply to babies but appears to have been interpreted to mean any child under the age of 18.

No, the law was forwarded by pro-life groups, thinking it would encourage adoption rather than abortion, and passed readily by an legislature in which republicans outnumber democrats 2 to 1... and none of them want to be labelled as "anti-child".

I'm sure we agree it's a great example of fuzzy thinking leading to unintended consequences, but this time (for once) the fuzzy thinking wasn't coming from the left.

As I said: ultraliberal thinking, regardless of the state or makeup of the legislature which passed it. Any time the government allows someone to just walk away from their obligations and then takes that responsibility over, there's a problem.

The funny, yet sad part: for years churches have taken in abandoned children along with orphanages. It's not a new problem, it's just a new muddled 'feel good' law.

How the hell did she con her son into a 12 hour drive? My teen complains if the drive is over 30 minutes!

bruceman wrote: How the hell did she con her son into a 12 hour drive? My teen complains if the drive is over 30 minutes!

Then you should beat his ass for mouthing off!

Jensenman wrote: As I said: ultraliberal thinking, regardless of the state or makeup of the legislature which passed it.

If a legislature passes a law you see as absolving responsibility, no matter the political leaning or affiliation, then the law is "liberal"? Even if it's a legislature that is overwhelmingly Conservative aka Republican?

Bush did do something right! He taught Republicans that if you don't like what you're doing just call it the opposite to avoid blame and responsibility for your actions.

Wonders never cease.

Jensenman wrote: As I said: ultraliberal thinking,

Yea, we all know how ultra liberal those pro-life groups are.