What do you think of how the law is set up?? With 14 children being dropped off since the law was implemented and most of them were between the ages of 10 and 17.......do you think that the law should remain the same? Do you think they should revise the law to make it only for babies up to a year old??

Tell me what you think. This one has been weighing heavily in my mind lately.

It seems the effort to help solve one problem, just highlighted another one. What do you think they should do?

The safe haven law and others like it are only band-aids for the real underlying problems. TO solve actual problems will take lots of money and time to completely reform education systems, medical (and most importantly mental health) care, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. In the meantime the original intent of these laws is to keep babies from ending up dead in a dumpster. It is weird that Nebraska allows such old children to be dumped. I am used to California's laws, which is infants only.

I'll be putting my views down later on. I don't have time right now. I was hoping someone would bite on this discussion. Thanks for posting.

More later.....

Ok, here's my take on the law. I've discussed it with many people.....mostly teachers and here's the conclusion I've drawn.

First of all my heart breaks for each and every child that has been abandoned under the protection of this law. How scary and sad for each of these children. How scary and sad that in a country as rich and abundant as ours that there isn't the kind of help out there for these families with troubled teens and pre-teens.

Think of what it must be like to have your parent just drop you off at a hospital and say "I hate to do this but I just can't keep you."
Think of the feelings of abandonment they must feel. I mean, seriously, what does a parent say to their children when they are dumping off a 9, 11, 14, or 17 year old. What does a parent say to a child younger than that? Does that child feel worthless and unloved as a result?

I really don't believe that any parent does this just because they don't want that child anymore. I believe they feel there is nowhere left to turn, so they take the child where the child will be well taken care of.

With the rise of mental health issues in children, it must be very difficult for parents to raise these kids. I bet every single one of the kids who was left belongs to a single parent with little or no support system to help them out with their troubled child so they take the child where they feel the child will be the safest.

I can tell you from experience that on the news they say there are these resources you should use before dropping off your kids but the resources are very difficult to find and take advantage of.....especially if you are above the poverty line.

I think the safe haven law is good because what would have happened to these children had the safe haven law hadn't been used? Those 9 kids that were dropped off were living without electricity and water...they probably had limited meals every day because there would be no fridge to keep the food in. I think that the law probably saves more lives than it ruins but who am I to say?

I don't feel that it should be a thing to use when you're having a bad month with your kids...and I'm sure it is tempting when you're having hard times with your kids. But in some cases, I believe the law has probably saved the lives of children and in the end isn't that more important?

So the law says you can drop off your kid without having any child abandonment charges...but with kids old enough to be able to realize that they are being left by their parent, that IS abandonment that will leave some pretty painful scars.

I agree the law is a good one for little ones--babies that might otherwise be dumped in dumpsters. But the law just doesn't make sense for older children.

I definately agree that there need to be more resources available to families at their wits end....but this law needs to be changed.

From what I've read in the paper about it the parents can be charged for neglect and\or abuse but as far as I know not abandonment.
What I'd really like to see is a social worker in the hospitals just like there is at an abortion clinic to talk to the adults in the situation and someone who is a liason between programs and parents so that these parents who really need support can get it without abandoning their children.

Erin, I just can't help but think of the father who left the 9 kids. They were living in a home with no running water and no electricity. He couldn't financially take care of the children, so I think he did what was best for them. However, I have to ask myself why he didn't ask other family for help before abandoning those children?

Oh no, Rod! Shuttle service from other states. That's funny and yet sad at the same time. So didn't they change the law now and go waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy to the other extreme...something like only a few days old??

I just read that another 17 year old boy was dropped off yesterday or today. Good grief! Why drop them off at this age?? And apparently both parents were there.

Do you think it could be a way of working the system? Won't these kids be available for all kinds of financial aid for college now?

And, yes, how ridiculous that they've changed the law, or whatever it is, to the other extreme. Aren't most babies still in the hospital at 3 days old?

I've heard a lot about this lately on the news - even in my neck of the woods. I think it depends on the situation. But who's to be the judge of each individual situation is the thing? Who should decide who gets to leave their children and who doesn't. I think it's a good program, but feel that it is being abused. I feel for those children - I think about the conditions they could possibly be in and I think, how could things have gotten so bad that they would just give up their child?

And I don't think the age should be lowered, I just think that there should be some sort of accountability there - that the parent shouldn't just be able to drop off the child without talking to someone who can help them way their options.

I dont' think it should be lowered either. If people are in that much of a crises, then I think they need somewhere safe to take their children.

The lives they're living must be so different than anything we can imagine. It's a very sad situation.

Then there's the girl who turned herself in because her Mom was mistreating her & taking benefits meant for the grandchild. That, I think, is cool. Kids would have another option when being mistreated.

I guess some of that is good...but what do they do with the kids once they are dropped off? It's not like there are generally a lot of emergency foster homes open! I think it would be far better to offer services and help within the home when possible. I personally think the Safe Haven law should be kept to babies or maybe young kids.