Law allows caregivers to abandon children leggaly

[concerned]

news.aol.com/health/article/11-kids-including-9-siblings-abandoned/188209?icid=200100397x1210127977x1200580240

The unique law allows caregivers to abandon babies and teenagers alike at hospitals without fear of prosecution - but in light of recent abandonments, including the Staton family's, lawmakers are pondering changes. Originally intended to protect infants, the law was expanded in a legislative compromise to protect any "child." Some have interpreted that to mean anyone under 19.
Here is an idea in Nebraska that continues to erode family values.

[Clipper]

This father was obviously stressed beyond his ability to cope. I feel sorry for him. He may not have made the right decision, but we don't know the circumstances either. 10 children is a huge responsibility to assume by yourself, while trying to work a full time job. He was probably disqualified for much of the help available to single parents BECAUSE HE WORKED so he was forced to quit his job. That is where welfare should be made available to assist, without having to depend on it for your only sustenance.

While his decision may not have been the best one, I am sure that he was simply overwhelmed with grief, and on the verge of, or in the midst of, a breakdown of some sort. I can't imagine being in mourning for a woman I loved, and also having to guide 10 children through the grief of losing their mother, while trying to provide for and guide that number of children.

I would pray for this man and the kids forced into this situation by desparation. It is very sad, and I am hoping that all involved will receive whatever help they are in need of. Hopefully, the family will qualify to take the children, so they won't end up in the foster care program with strangers.

[concerned]

I like that response it brings such hope. I wish the father could read it.

[dgriffin]

""What we're seeing is the unfolding of a policy that wasn't well thought-out," he said."
That seems endemic in state legislatures.

I'll bet there's a lot of background here we don't know about. For example, if the father abandoned them in NY State, as he could, he would remain financially responsible for them, up to his ability to pay. He gets a free ride in Nebraska. But somebody pays. This could have been the result of his arguing with a welfare agency for benefits. Since Safe Haven is a state law, maybe the state pays for the kids support and his county welfare agency wanted that.
I don't know any of this to be true, but it just seems like there's more to the story.

[dgriffin]

Interesting article at:
www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/Last%20report.pdf

Unintended Consequences:
“Safe Haven” Laws Are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them


Excerpt:


Executive Summary[/b]


In response to unsafe infant abandonments that place children at risk of harm or death, 42 states in the last three years
have enacted so-called “safe haven” laws allowing legal, anonymous abandonment of newborns at designated sites.
Because legislators have acted so quickly, usually in response to one or more well-publicized unsafe abandonments in
their states, they typically have not studied the causes of abandonment before enacting these laws. Moreover, since few
states are collecting any data to evaluate the efficacy of anonymous abandonment – or trying to determine if other alternatives
might be effective – there is no evidence demonstrating that these laws solve the problem at which they are aimed.
In fact, available information suggests few babies are left at safe havens in states that provide them. Even when they have
this option, girls and women continue to leave newborns in bathrooms, trash bins and parking lots. Furthermore, experts
question whether the people using safe havens would otherwise have abandoned their babies unsafely. And there are
indications these new laws lead to unintended consequences, including:
• encouraging women to conceal pregnancies, then abandon infants who otherwise would have been placed in
adoptions through established legal procedures or would have been raised by biological parents or relatives;
• creating the opportunity for upset family members, disgruntled boyfriends, or others who have no legal rights,
to abandon babies without the birth mothers’ consent;
• inducing abandonment by women who otherwise would not have done so because it seems “easier” than
receiving parenting counseling or making an adoption plan;
• depriving biological fathers of their legal right to care for their sons or daughters even if they have the desire
and personal resources to do so;
• ensuring that the children who are abandoned can never learn their genealogical or medical histories, even
when the consequences for their health are dire;
• precluding the possibility of personal contact and/or the exchange of medical information between birth parents
and children in the future; and
• sending a signal, especially to young people, that they do not have to assume responsibility for their actions
and that deserting one’s children is acceptable.

###

Wow! There are a lot of consequences.

[Ralph]

Ya know, Clipper hit the nail on the head.

I think that regardless of his intentions, this man should be commended for his actions, as I can see so many possible “bad” outcomes that could have followed if he kept them and couldn’t cope.

Yes, there is “help” in most states, but usually the hoops you have you jump through to attain what little there is makes it almost unbearable to go on.
And at what point would the State step in to remove the children from his custody when they began to slip in school or somewhere else?

After losing his wife and their mother, I am sure that they have had little time to grieve let alone to try and heal.

I went to bed many times in my life hungry myself, but knowing my children were well fed, but still dwelling on whether we would make it to the next payday…….and we only had four in the house full time. Ten would be beyond me.

While I am sure he is not happy with his decision, he will sleep better tonight knowing his children are warm and not hungry. He loved them enough to take a step not many would take, it took a tremendous amount of courage to do that. In the end, they won’t forget that, and neither should we.

[Clipper]

This could have been a very different scenario, had this man's grief and desperation led him to the point of it ending with a horribly tragic mulitple homicide and suicide. Stress and grief can drive folks to really horribly misguided measures.

I imagine he is a very sad Dad and feels a sense of failure and defeat, but I still think he did what was best for the children, whether it be the best for those that begrudge charity to the DESERVING or not.

I would rather be tasked with donating my tax money to the support of this families needs, that to donate to the support of a 10 more able bodied lazy asses that know how to milk the system.

I have been criticized on here before for my defense of welfare recipients, but in today's society there is a necessity for the system, and there are those deserving of the help.

It has been said that "in the old days" people managed to muddle by without welfare. Well, in the old days neighbors and friends were much more charitable also. People didn't sit and watch their neighbor's children go to bed hungry.

I compare today's greed with a person who can grill a filet mignon on the grill while the starving kids next door, peer hungrily through the fence, instead of throwing on a few burgers, and a package of hot dogs and passing a platter over the fence while he cooks his filet mignon.

I have to repeat myself. I will be praying for the whole situation to work out in favor of what is best for these children. Hopefully, as I said before, family members will "qualify" to care for these children, and will receive benefits to assist with the care of these kids. I would hate to see 10 children, grieving for their deceased mom, and traumitized by the necessity for their Dad to take drastic measures to insure their safety and welfare, end up separated, and with strangers, unable to console each other and remain a family.