Weblogic

I think that they should continue to protect children of all ages. There are apparently problems for the older childen as well as the younger, and they should have the same options to get assistance and they won't if the parents think they will get in trouble....Please keep helping all the children.

no common sense. Only up to 3 days Old??? Ridiculous, what if someone has a child for one or two weeks and decides they can't handle taking care of their baby?? What is the alternative then?? The safe haven law is suppose to stop people from killing and dumping their babies! Recently on the news, they found a baby in a dumpster crying beneath trash. Thank God a janitor heard the baby when he dumped trash in.
If an older child cannot be cared for, then there is the option of putting the child up for adoption.

I realize Safe Haven is to make it possible for a parent to leave a child at a specific point without consequences, but to stop at 3 days old is ridiculous. If they limit it to 3 days, there will be so many more babies just dumped and left to die. And that makes the governor and legislature the criminal as far as I'm concerned.
I hope they can sleep at night!

I haven't had time to do thorough research, but I knew there had to be more to the story. I found from CBS News the following. Nebraska was the last state to adopt a safe haven law this year, and had a "flurry of young children - and teenagers - dropped off at hospitals and police stations caught Nebraska officials by surprise, 18 since the law took effect three months ago. One overwhelmed Nebraska widower dropped off nine kids ranging from 20 months to 17-years-old. Then, grandparents of a 14-year-old from Iowa and a Michigan mother of an adopted 13-year-old left the children at Omaha hospitals....Nebraska's [current] safe haven law is the only one in the nation that doesn't set an age limit. For example, 15 states accept infants up to 3-days-old. Fourteen states set the age limit at one-month-old, and only two states accept children up to a year old."

Read "With No Direction Home" and "Freakonomics" to learn what happens with unwanted children. The question always comes back to whether you believe social services serve society at large as well as the immediate individuals receiving the service. What pays for those services is...you guessed it.

I can easily say that Nebraska shouldn't change the current law since the demand over the last year has clearly shown the need for it. The rest of the state has to agree about what they value: providing safe haven for unwanted children and paying the associated costs, or realistically accept the consequences when you don't have those services, which means higher crime and other social ills.

Not only is it the right thing to do, we're safer and happier as a whole when we take care of those who need help.

I think it should include all children. What will happen to these older children now when the parent decides they no longer want them if you take that option away from them? Will these older children be safe from harm?

Thank you for always providing clarity here.

Thanks so much! I try! :-)

I think the law should be changed to allow children to drop off their deadbeat parents at the local police station!

Alright Claude, there is something we can agree on! I always knew it!! :-) :-)

Maybe there is hope for the Middle East yet?

All that is required is willingness to make peace.

I think ALL children should be safe. How dare we to assume that a 17yr old can take care of him/herself. It is our responsabilty to raise the children..no matter what age.

I think Nebraska should set an age limit, but not 3 days old, sometimes it takes longer for a young person to discover the responsibility is too great. Granted, those people with older children could approach a social institution and say "I want to give my child up for adoption", but there is the issue of having to face someone and admit you aren't up to the task of taking responsibility for your actions. Most children from the age of 10 up could find a church, police station or dial 911 to say, "hey, Ive been abandoned and have no where to go". so I think 10 would be a good age for the 'safe haven' law. Younger than that, you face sharing in the responsibility of not caring/protecting helpless children and them being found on the side of the road dead.

Come on Kati, that is unAmerican! Find yourself a big stick, then make peace.

Oh, I gotta stick for you all right!

Remember peace. Turn the other cheek. Give them your cloake also. Beat your sticks into plowshares. Never give a sucker an even break! Oops, that one just slipped out!!

I don't see anything wrong with the law the way it is right now just think of your 13 year old daughter left by herself and trying to take care of herself and the only way she can is to sleep with any tom Dick or Harry and live like that. I don't want my children to live that kind of life and most people would not either so let someone take care of them for you.

I think there should absolutely be protection for children of all ages but that is why we have adoption. not setting an age limit is simply giving parents permission to be irresponsible and lazy. its teaching them to give up on their kids when they have the slightest problem. a simple solution to these problems is to keep your legs closed. the law is intended to protect those who are simply incapable of raising a baby. those like teens or special adults who dont have the help after the damage is done. dropping off babies is acceptable but dropping off a child just because you as a parent couldnt get your child to take his medicine is completely unacceptable.