Legal

This Is Not The Way Things Were Supposed To Work

MayorBob.

Posted to Legal on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:54:21 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Since 1999, states have enacted Safe Haven laws as measures to help protect the most vulnerable among us.  For the most part, the laws allow parents or guardians, to surrender children they are responsible for with the state.  They are intended to remove younger children (you might say babies) from threatening environments and not punish the surrendering custodian.  Most of the laws are quite strictly worded, along those lines.  Nebraska apparently is not one of these as, within a few months of enactment of that state's Safe Haven law, two older children have been surrendered under the Safe Haven law - inappropriately in the minds of many Nebraskans.

When LB 157 was first read on the floor of the legislature, it quite clearly limited the age of the children covered by the law to 72 hours or less.  Yet, between the time it was introduced and the time it was finally enacted (pdf doc) something had changed.  What changed was there was no mention of age limit whatsoever.  According to the bill's sponsor, non-partisan State Senator Arnie Stuthman from Platte Center, he had to expand the bill's coverage to include all children to get enough votes to get it passed.  However, Stuthman said:

"This is not intended to be used when a child is unruly or out of control.  People need to realize the effect on the child and what it will do to families."
Within the past week a 15-year-old boy was dropped off at a hospital in Lincoln and an 11-year-old boy at a hospital in Omaha.  Neither child was in any danger and both were surrendered because of "behavior problems."  Before the Safe Haven law went into effect, either guardian could have been charged with child neglect or abandonment (both misdemeanors) or felony child abuse.  A representative from the state Health and Human Services department lamented the law's use to handle teenaged behavior problems.  Jim Blue, from Cedars Youth Services, says "there are good organizations that can help with teens when situations become stressed."  But those agencies work to help the child as well as work for reconciliation with the guardian experiencing problems with the child.  With Safe Haven, the child is ultimately absorbed into the state's foster care system.

Some Nebraskans join Blue in questioning this use of the law.  Kathy Moore of Voices for Children in Nebraska declared it a "new front door to the child welfare system."  At least one Nebraskan tried to put some positive spin on the cases.  State Senator Brad Ashford says, although the law was intended to save younger children, "if it does save a child, then it's worth it obviously."  Ashford says the law will have to be reviewed to see if older children are being saved or if parents are just gaming the system.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, Safe Haven laws, abandonment, behavioral problems, children, teenagers, Nebraska (all tags)

This story: 6 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: This Is Not The Way Things Were Supposed To Wo

harzerkatze.

Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:54:03 AM EST

5.00 (interesting, astute)

I don't get the problem.

There are tools to take away kids from parents when the parent obviously can't handle kids, to keep the kids from suffering because of this. But why should the only way for this to come into effect be when an outside party like a social worker decides that the kid is to be taken away? Why should not the parent be able to surrender by himself? Better than to go through the motions until something big happens and then have the state steps in anyways.

Reality shows us that some people cannot raise their children. Although it is nice to have eighbors watch out for these cases and alarm the authorities, it does not make sense that the people involved should not decide this, too.

So the law may not be intended for this, but to me, it seems like a positive unwanted side effect, not a negative one.

2

^ 1

As Usual

Shy Elf.

Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:08:07 AM EST

4.00 (funny, funny)

How dare you interpret the law as we wrote it, instead of how we imagined it?

3

^ 1

What's The Problem?

MayorBob.

Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:37:08 AM EST

none

See the headline for the story and consider:

  1. The two children who were surrendered under this Safe Haven law were way older than 99 percent of those in favor of these laws would be supportive of.

  2. All things being even, a child is better off being reared by their parents or guardians -- people who putatively have their best interests at heart.

  3. When things break down in a family, the best course of action is for society to provide resources to help that family heal whatever the distress is they are experiencing.

  4. Making a child a ward of the state, especially when their parents and guardians are still alive, is not a good thing.  I'm not saying that this is universally the case, but it really should be a last option.

  5. This brings me to the basic problem with this case -- there is no guarantee the surrendering parent or guardian will try to accomplish all the subordinate steps before the children (in this case an 11 and a 15-year-old) become wards of the state.  I would think most of us would want a family to invest the hard work and effort in resolving their problems before they dump them on the rest of us.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

4

^ 3

Re: What's The Problem?

skeptic.

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM EST

none

Even though it is true, as you say, that it is a "last option" for children to become wards of the state while their actual parents are still alive, it remains an option that we need to have.  Some parents are just not able and/or willing to raise their own children, and in such cases we do need the option that the children will instead become wards of the state (and possibly given up for adoption, if adoptive parents can be found - which is a problem with older children, since most people who want to adopt children prefer to adopt very young children, ideally those who have no memory of having any other parents).

I would also agree that yes, I would want a family to invest the hard work and effort to resolve their problems with their children, before dumping them on the rest of us.  But again, if a family is not willing or able to do that hard work, then society does have to pick up the slack.  If this results in an excessive burden on society (we can imagine that this becomes a very popular option that irresponsible parents will choose, so that millions of children of all ages get turned in at hospitals because they are unwanted by their parents) one remedy would be my own previously proposed plan, which is to require a license for anyone to reproduce, rather than allowing people to reproduce at will, giving birth to children whom they are not prepared to raise successfully.  This requires a means by which all women can be made sterile until a reversing treatment is given.

Let us also remember, if large numbers of unwanted children wind up being turned in by their parents to be raised by the state, this is a new expense for society, but it is also an opportunity!  These children can be raised in state creches as soldiers, trained from childhood in warfare and patriotism.  These soldiers would help fight the wars in which America is now embroiled, and the new wars which are to come.  Some might call this involuntary servitude, but then, the Supreme Court has always refused to rule on the legality of the draft.  This would just be a special form of the draft.

5

^ 3

-2, Offtopic.

pO157.

Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 04:14:45 PM EST

none

 I would think most of us would want a family to invest the hard work and effort in resolving their problems before they dump them on the rest of us.  

Do gooders don't seem to have much of a problem immediately tossing welfare funds at families with issues.

6

The Omaha Triple A Club Thanks You.

MayorBob.

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 09:18:06 AM EST

none

An out of work man donated a baseball team to the state of Nebraska.  He dropped nine kids, ages one to 17 off at a hospital.  His wife of 17 years passed away from a cerebral hemorrhage and he just felt overcome.  He has a tenth child, a newborn, that he's keeping.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

This story: 6 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment