Kid giving you a hard time? Dump 'em!

Lots of states let parent drop off unwanted newborns at hospital, fire stations and the like. But here’s a twist:

"Nebraska’s new statute allows parents to drop off kids of ANY age up to 17.

And sure enough… this past weekend, a 13-year-old girl was left at a hospital. Earlier, 11 and 15-year-old boys were abandoned at hospitals, and a 12-year-old boy was dropped at a police station"

On the one hand, if a parent is that fed up with a child that they might do this, isn’t it better than the parent keeping the child and abusing him/her?

But then again, these dumped kids go into the foster care system, which is already overly full.

Good idea? Bad?

My first reaction is that I’m all for it. If you’re the kind of lowlife who has a kid and then at any point decides you no longer want to be responsible for it, then he or she is probably better off without you. Maybe we should expand the foster system or go back to orphanages but try to do them right this time.

I say, good. Someone who thinks it’s appropriate to get rid of their child in this fashion is, by definition, someone who should not be responsible for a child.

Right now I’m inclined to believe that anything that gets kids away from inept, unfit parents is probably a good thing, even if the foster system sucks.

Before referring to a parent as a “lowlife”, I’d want to take into consideration what the situation is.

Let’s face it - some kids are way out of control. Maybe the kid beats their siblings, maybe they’re just rotten to the core, maybe they have drug/alcohol issues.
Some parents dont have the financial/family support to get through these things and the kids may fall through the cracks and if they are “given up”, then perhaps they can get some much needed help.

I’m not defending the parent’s/gaurdian’s actions, just not jumping to conclusions and labeling them as being unfit without the details.

I used to work for a woman who was one of the kindest, most charitable, forgiving women I have ever met. She told me one day that she hoped there was a special circle of hell being reserved for an ex-friend of hers.

See, this woman had a child, and had divorced. She remarried when her daughter was five and her new husband said he was okay with the kid. Five years later, he decided he wasn’t okay with her, and they sent her off to foster care at age 10.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to get kids, even in their teens, out of houses where they’re not wanted and into ones that are, provided that second step is an option…

I think yours is a wiser approach.

Maybe this is a discussion for another thread but I don’t think kids beat their siblings senselessly or have drug or alcohol problems or are rotten to the core by nature. Maybe John Wayne Gacy killed people because he hit his head on a swing - I don’t know - but far more often, I will be bold and say damn near always there is something going on under the surface. Even in what appears from the outside to be “a good home”, there is often some form of abuse going on, whether it be sexual, emotional, physical, or just neglect. I refuse to believe people are “bad” by nature, at least in 99.9999% of cases. In this case I’m very comfortable calling the parents lowlifes and if an exception is ever proven to me I will retract the label on a case by case basis.

Although Pixilated didn’t spell it out, it looked to me that he/she meant each situation should be handled on a case by case basis. So maybe automatically regarding all of the parents as low lifes doesn’t accomplish much.

I have said all I will in this thread.

That interpretation doesn’t make sense to me unless Pixilated thought the system was going to publically declare them lowlifes and handle them on an other than case-by-case basis. I thought it was pretty clear that Pixilated was speaking to me, since he or she directly quoted the word I used, so I responded.

…and this coming from someone who referred to a kid as an “it”. Slip of the tongue?

You’re correct, there most usually is something going on under the surface - but we cannot always blame the parents/guardians. Abuse does not always happen IN THE HOME/in the family. Drugs happen, and you cant always acuse the parents of bad parenting. That, my overally-quick-to-label-others, is an over-all scape-goat.

There are always two sides to a story, and I sure as hell would never want you on a jury.

-signing off

The usual delusion here . People think they can actually mold kids on the proper path. You can do your best but sometimes it just does not work according to plan. They are still your kids and you are stuck with them. How many wanted their kids to go to jail or get in trouble. ? But it happens in the best of homes with the best of intentions.

May you have the opportunity to experience this first hand as a parent and the wisdom to deal with it better than those you criticize.

I find it odd that anyone thinks this is a good idea - It would be one thing if parents could report themselves to child protection services for an audit (which I bet they already could) - to me this just smacks of laziness and frustration and a feeling that there is no point at which one should actually become accountable for their choices.

Who whoa whoa, what’s with the personal insults? This is not a jury, it’s a discussion board. “It” was not a slip of the tongue; it’s a slip of the English language. We have no gender-neutral singular pronoun and it’s cumbersome to go around writing he/she all the time, so “it” and sometimes “they” is acceptable. And FYI I have served on federal a jury and I followed the judge’s jury instructions to a T just like everyone else, thank you very much.

And you’re damn right I’m quick to label something that is true in the vast majority of cases. Saying or doing anything in life would involve expressing one qualifier after another into oblivion otherwise. Generalizations are useful. I’m not going to let you bully me into backing down because I think 99+% of bad kids have bad parents. Blame the kids if you want; I’m not that cynical, and the sum of my life experience tells me you’d be wrong almost every time. Like I said, when the other <1% come along I’ll concede an exception.

Was there something in one of the stories referenced in the OP that said these kids were “behavior problems” or something? (I confess I didn’t read them.) Because that’s what everyone here seems to be presuming.

If there’s nothing in the stories to indicate this, though, couldn’t it be that the parents had financial problems or something making it best for the kids that they be raised by someone else?

Still not great, but certainly not a petulant “I give up on this kid” gesture like people are saying in the thread so far.


Out of curiosity, do you believe that 99% of good kids have good parents, and thus that from a given family either all the kids are good, or all the kids are bad (98% of the time) - or that parents are simply defined as being bad parents based on whether one or more of their kids are bad?

I give up is I give up, regardless of what the reason is. If you have a kid you stick with it, IM-not-at-all-HO. I’ve known more than my share of dirt poor people who raised good, healthy, successful kids. People forget that not that long ago, a whole generation of Americans grew up destitute during the depression. My grandparents never knew where their next meal was going to come from when they were kids and they grew up to be fine people. I can’t count how many teachers and professors I’ve had over the years who would tell of being basically homeless as a kid to getting a masters or PhD and taking care of their parents in old age because the one thing they always had was their love. But apparently having values is not very - ahem - valuable to everyone here.

Who are you talking about, and what is the basis for your speculation?


I think a good kid can come from a bad parent more often than a bad kid can come from a good parent. I haven’t done or even read any scientific studies of that nature but I am very observational and I meet a lot of people and that’s been my experience in general. There can be “bad” and “good” kids within the same family for reason that are probably too complicated for me to fully understand or explain.

Some factors could be that a dad can be harder on his boys, for example, than his girls (or vice-versa) (I’ve seen this one a lot - dads who have no problem yelling out their boys often don’t know how to discipline their daughters; this could produce good boys or good girls, depending on how constructive his discipline is), or a parent can calm down and come to terms with their own anger as the younger child is still developing but the older child is already affected. Also, different kids will handle things differently. I’ve seen a lot of kids be mistreated by their parents and cope by doing drugs, and I’ve seen some kids in the same situation cope by sticking their face in a book and getting straight As. I’ve seen parents raise “good” kids, and then have a “bad” kid later in life when they’re not interested enough to be involved anymore, and I’ve seen the opposite where parents raise “bad” kids and then have another kid later when they’ve come to terms with their own problems and get it “right.”

Bottom line is, I don’t think people are inherently bad. Yeah, bad things happen to good people, and maybe the kid has an Uncle Badtouch that the parents don’t know about, but in the vast majority of cases of a parent wanting to dump their kid, at any time, for WHATEVER reason, I am very comfortable calling that parent a lowlife.