| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Memo to Self: Never Let the Babysitter take Junior to Nebraska! |
| 2008-08-25 |
| Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19. Wait. It gets better. While lawmakers may not have intended it, the month-old law raises the possibility that frustrated parents could drop off misbehaving teens or even severely disabled older children with impunity. "Whether the kid is disabled or unruly or just being a hormonal teenager, the state is saying: 'Hey, we have a really easy option for you,"' said Adam Pertman, executive director of a New York adoption institute and a frequent critic of safe-haven laws. Nebraska's approach is surprising because it is the last state in the nation to adopt a safe-haven law. But instead of following the lead of other states, which focus on the abandonment of newborns, lawmakers here wanted to extend the protection to all minors. And in Nebraska, that goes all the way up to age 19. "All children deserve our protection," said Sen. Tom White, who helped broaden the measure. "If we save one child from being abused, it's well, well worth it." White said it doesn't matter if that child is an infant or 3 years old or in the care of a parent or baby sitter. As for what constitutes a minor, he refers to common law, which interprets it to be anyone under age 14. The measure, which took effect July 18, does not absolve people of possible criminal charges -- for example, if a child had been beaten. And since the law does not specify, it technically allows anyone, not just a parent, to legally surrender custody. Most other states narrowly define the role of the person surrendering the child. WTF??? Maybe some of the Rantburg Bar could 'splain this to me, but would there be any recourse for a parent in this situation? (Other than comin' after 'em with a lead pipe or a shotgun once I got Junior safely home.....if I could get Junior safely home before he got sucked into the Child Welfare services.....) |
| Posted by:Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields |
| #9 Bullshit!!!!! McCain the houseboy to a rich bitch wants to squelch gay rights and i say, bullshit!!! TRUTHERS HURT BUSH DID 9-11 |
| Posted by: Albert Grotle3730 2008-08-25 17:15 |
| #8 A good thing we don't have that law in Ohio. Temporary foster daughter's father would have dumped both girls a year ago for no longer adoring him like they did as toddlers. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-25 16:35 |
| #7 Safe Haven laws are a crock around the country. They do NOT reach the women you would want to reach -- the ones who birth a baby in a toilet and then abandon it in a paper bag in the cold. Such women have substantial psychological issues and don't use the Safe Haven laws (go figure). SH laws are a feel-good for legislators who don't want to tackle the difficult problems of helping women with unwanted babies. This knucklehead Tom White (no relation, thank goodness) is just following his progressive instincts to their natural conclusion. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-25 13:21 |
| #6 So what's the problem with just dumping the little darling upon the state? You want all the power, you can have'm. I think is going to open the proverbial can of worms The problem, Procopius, is that the dollars going to support that little darlin' are comin' outta' your and my pockets! Yeah, I know you were joking, but these buffoons don't need any more "good" ideas for how to pick our pockets "for the children". |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-08-25 13:14 |
| #5 Up to age 19, you say? I wonder what it costs to Fedex a package overnight to Nebraska. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-08-25 13:10 |
| #4 Well, he is a high priced trial attorney from Omaha who stridently opposed tax cuts, Milton. ;) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields 2008-08-25 12:02 |
| #3 Now wait a minute. The state claims the power to teach your kids that its OK to do sex. They'll provide the means to abort without parental consent. That even that isn't necessary because the state authority figures say that same-sex extra curriculum activity is OK too. The state says its criminal assault if you engage in Pavlovian behavior modification to your little creation. Child Service will get into your door on the slightest unfounded rumor and then take control of the house hierarchy and daily operations. So what's the problem with just dumping the little darling upon the state? You want all the power, you can have'm. I think is going to open the proverbial can of worms. :) |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-08-25 12:01 |
| #2 What's next? Retroactive Abortion on Demand? Paid for by your tax dollars? After all its just a tiny bit more then partial birth abortion.... Somehow I don't think the big Zero would have a problem with that. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-08-25 12:01 |
| #1 Oboy! Do we get to play 'guess which party' Senator White is? |
| Posted by: Milton Fandango 2008-08-25 11:55 |