Why is Nebraska rushing to get rid of the safe haven law for older kids?

If a parent is driving hundreds of miles to drop of thier flesh and bloodsurely they’re safer and better off without that parent.

Safe Haven Doubts

I’ve wondered the same thing myself. I mean, some people just shouldn’t be parents. If it takes them a year or 12 to realize this, let the kids go to foster homes where they might be wanted.

Joe

With the huge amount of homeless teens thrown out of their homes and forced to live on the streets, you would think what is happening in Nebraska would be a wake up call.

Yes, some kids are tough to handle at that age, and I can well imagine many parents, especially single parents who are beyond the point of frustration, feel there is no option but to toss these kids out. To a certain extent, for a parent to drive half way across the country to drop off their kids at a “safe” place shows they do, in their own odd way, still love their children, but have come to their wit’s end.

Still, instead of putting these kids on the streets to fend for themselves by turning to prostitution and dealing drugs, you would think a sane society would try to find a way to help them achieve some semblance of a normal life by helping them find employment and housing and a chance to get back into school.

On the other hand, I can understand why Nebraska doesn’t want to become the nation’s dumping ground for every troubled teen from 49 other states. Not only is it an unfair financial burden for one state, it is just the weakest of band aids for a far more serious problem that cannot be solved by dumping teenagers at a hospital and driving away.

It seems to me that if that many kids were dropped off (of course, most came from one family), then that’s a pretty clear indicator that the drop off is, sadly, needed.

I think it’s stupid to get rid of it too. Kids closer to becoming adults lose value apparently and should be neglected by the parents not the state. Maybe they expect bus loads of teens to show up at the drop offs to avoid homelessness.

No, a sane society wouldn’t try it with a gun to its head. Not trying to be a jerk, but why don’t *you *try to find employment, and housing and a chance to get back into school for a local 12 year old that is in trouble in your area? You’re part of ‘society’. And, until you get these unfortunates situated as you desire, you may take the responsibility of housing, feeding, educating, and keeping safe, each one of them. Not an easy, neither a pleasant task, is it?

I’m of two minds on this, on one hand, I agree with this statement. If a parent is really despairing (or jerk) enough to drop off their child, it’s hard to argue that they would be better off.

On the other hand, what a blow to the child to be able to be given away so freely, especially in their early teens/tweens. I’m not sure the difference between forrced crappy parenting vs being dumped like a sack of turnips, but in many cases I would think being abandoned at that age would be worse.

Because it’s neither easy nor pleasant doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

The reason we talk about society doing it is because sometimes individuals don’t have the resources to take a child in and cope with all the problems that child brings with them. To top it off, in our society today, it’s practically impossible to make the necessary choices for a child - medical, school, legal, and otherwise - without the government’s backing, if you’re not the parent.

So, yes, a sane society would deal with this long before anyone put a gun to anyone else’s head. Even if not for pity’s sake or the child’s sake, then for our own self-interest, because a child who has no shelter, no income, and no parental guidance is going to do damage. They will break the law to survive. They will steal. They will prostitute themselves. They will live in unsafe conditions. They will do drugs. They will end up in our emergency rooms with injuries and illnesses and no way to pay for care. In the end, we will end up paying.

So, it’s better for everyone - the parent, the child, and the taxpayer - if we deal with this now. It’s better if we, as a society, make arrangements for abandoned children to have appropriate shelter, food, education, and medical care, because the cost of that is minute in comparison to dealing with them as criminals, vagrants, and addicts.

Because taking care of all these children is going to be really expensive.

I thought it was a fear that some parents would just dump the kids when they difficult, especially in their teens. Kind of “Well you don’t want to live by my rules? Get in the car; we’re going to the hospital;” instead of dealing with the problems themselves and disciplining their kids. Yeah, some kids have problems that their parents really can’t deal with, or financial problems make them unable to care for them, but it’s the first group I would think they would tire of dealing with. Not to mention the emotional problems after being abandoned as a teenager, jeez.