Skip to comments.Father drops off 9 kids under safe haven law
Posted on 09/25/2008 6:49:46 AM PDT by dware
Father drops off 9 kids under safe haven law
Associated Press - September 25, 2008 8:45 AM ET
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A hospital spokeswoman say nine children left at Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha by their father under the state's safe haven law were turned over to child protection services.
The spokeswoman says the children were left at the emergency room Wednesday night. She had no other details.
(Excerpt) Read more at nebraska.tv ...
I think I am OK with this.
I wish a charity or like a church orphanage became responbsible for the children.
Yeah me too. He may just need some help and will come back though.
I think I am too..at least they are safe and unharmed.
If you are at the end of your rope, this is the best option. I don’t know if that is the case, but it is one of the reasons the safe haven laws are enacted.
I’d like more details before I commit fully to this, but on the surface, this action seems to be a good thing. It’s hard to know or understand what the man was thinking or going through because of lack of details, but given the fact that he surrendered them up to the emergency room, he was probably pretty desperate.
Hey, I’d much rather read this kind of story then the one where same man kills all 9 children.
God’s blessings on those kids.
Hope the kids get better than they had. Obviously, this is a family in crisis. And I pray that they can keep close to each other.
I guess Dick Van Patten was right...eight was enough.
I just hope they were all his and he didn’t take the wife or girl friend’s kids in too.
Agreed. I am ok with it as well, and I hope those kids make it through the emotional trauma.
On the flip side, this is a sad commentary on the state of society today.
I am VERY okay with this. As a foster parent, I know the alternative, leaving the children in that situation, would be far worse.
Mixed emotions. It breaks my heart, and yet, I’d rather see this happen than have read about their murder.
As an aside, we have two empty bedrooms at my house! :O)
I’m OK with this if all the kids are Americans. They range in age from 1-17.
OK with me....providing he deposited his 2 testicles at the front door!
Hmmm...need some cats?
Would they have preferred that he harmed them in some way?
I am certain that this is much less expensive than burying any number of children and incarcerating the parents for killing them.
These clowns might want to consider Susan Smith.
I understand entirely. Best of luck with your feline overlord.
Historically it is not unusual to find situations where a parent or couple has abandoned children they could not support to government authorities. These kids were terms orphans, although they weren’t technically. Charities cared for them, and in many cases exported them to other areas of the country, as in the orphan trains from New York City.
My father’s mother died when he was four years old and the oldest of three boys. It was during the depression and he could easily have been abandoned except that the extended family provided him with more than twenty sets of aunts and uncles who took turns taking in the boys until their dad remarried a few years later. Too many families don’t have that kind of support anymore and nine kids can be overwhelming to even a couple in a good situation.
I only hope the kids can be kept together.
“This does not belong in the news. I think splashing the headline in the local paper discourages those in desperate need from making a heart-wrenching decision.”
On the other hand, if the Dems can just find this guy, they can turn him into a poster child for the mean Bush/McCain economy. Of course, once his usefulness was over, they would drop him like leftover chicken bones.
Thank GOD he didn’t kill them. GOD HELP THEM.
I support safe haven laws for several reasons. First and foremost, it shows at least enough wisdom on the part of the parent to realize that they are unable to support their children any longer. The reasons for this are less important than the realization. Second, it shows they have the wisdom to move their children into a better situation immediately.
And while the first inclination is to suggest that such parents try to keep their children, because “there is a government program for that”, while it may be true, it ignores that loss of confidence and collapse of morale of the parent. If they felt they had the internal resources to fix things, or that the government could fix things, they would have tried that already.
There is an old medical rule of thumb that if someone thinks they are sick or have a problem, they probably do, even if it is not obvious. And a similar rule of thumb should be used in this case. If a parent does not think they can care for their children any more, the assumption should be that they can’t.
And this brings up some possibilities.
For example, the “prime homeless” are families that have been put out on the street. And most everybody sympathizes with them, because most will be able to quickly get their lives together with some support, get new jobs, find a place to live, and reintegrate with society.
But the adults having to support their kids, for a short time, makes things much, much harder. For this reason, the “safe haven” laws should have two routes: short term care in what amounts to an orphanage; and long term care in foster homes.
That is, the parents should be able to drop their kids off under a safe haven law, but on a temporary basis, until the parents can get organized and successful again. This will insure the children have a safe place to sleep, food, clothes and schooling for some months, in an institutional situation like an orphanage, while their parents get work.
The check on this will be an evaluation of the parents status once they think they can care for their children again. Only if they are determined to be economically sound will their children be returned to live with them.
The other safe haven law should be for family catastrophe. Say one or both parents are injured in an automobile accident, or are chronically or mentally ill, or have just given up and admitted to themselves that they cannot raise children.
And this would be to the foster care route used today.
Importantly, States across the US should have such laws in place ASAP, since we might be facing a serious economic downturn. For even though the parents may have to take the hit for Wall Street, it isn’t right that children have to do so as well.
Once upon a time - as late as the first part of the 20th century - many children who had living parents were brought up in orphanages because the parents simply couldn’t take care of them. I had a friend who grew up in a Catholic orphanage - she loved it and then joined the order when she was an adult!
One of the problems is that we have essentially destroyed the “orphanage” system, even though in many cases a good orphanage would be a better environment for these kids than living with their parents.
All three of our adopted children were abandoned by their birthparents, and given to the care of foreign orphanages.
I’m glad they were allowed to live and were given a second chance.
Wow, my father just used to threaten me with military school!
Those children will always remember how their father left them and never see him again. That will effects their emotional being for their rest of their lives. Many years of hurt and scar that they need to overcome. I hope they will get special counseling for the bad memories. My mother was dropped off as a baby many years ago and she is bitter about it. But she can’t control what happened to her. Good idea for the children to be safe but the same time have to deal with their emotionally for their rest of their lives.
I know that some convents have a sort of turntable crib where a mother can drop off her newborn and leave it in a warm, safe place. A nun checks on the crib every 15 minutes and takes any babies left behind to the local hospital.
Ideal solution? No, but we don't live in an ideal world.
God did help them.....they are alive, unharmed and being well care for , at least for now...... the system worked this time. My only bad feeling about this is those kids may, or may not, be separated as they are placed into foster homes etc ........ I have seen good and bad foster care operations when I was a deputy sheriff.
Doom on those that provide foster care for mere profit versus taking in a child in need and helping them recover from the events that led them there and help the child grow strong physically and mentally so they can continue to enjoy their childhood as they learn in a safe and secure environment to be self sufficient and intelligent young adults.
Just my opinion.....Stay safe Ann !
I don't know if I would condemn those people. If they are providing a safe, relatively stable environment for the kids they foster, then they are providing a needed service, regardless of their motivation. Not the ideal, certainly, but it's better than some of the alternatives.
My “GOD HELP THEM” really meant what the kid’s will be feeling about what happened to them and their feelings about being abandoned. GOD HAS HELPED them, and HE WILL KEEP HELPING THEM!
Some of the ones I speak of were better only by sleeping in the dumpster versus next to the dumpsters. I was called to many times to remove children from 2nd level of the hell they escaped in the first place.
Sorry if my original post didn’t expand on such. There are good foster care systems thus I said and stand by my comment based on personal experience .....doom on those that do such for mere profit. Versus providing “proper care and comfort” to a troubled and frightened displaced child.
I am OK with it as well. At least the children are safe.. and didn’t turn up inside car in a lake.
If they did that, the church might actually PRAY for the kids and tell them about GOD. We CAN’T have such behavior!!! /s
My son's birth-mother did just that, in Russia. He was delivered at home, brought immediately to a hospital as he was 4-6 weeks premature, and she never saw him again.
I’d rather read about this than about an obituary for an abandoned baby, or one which has died from abuse (including abortion). The reality is that parenthood is a demanding, unrelenting job and some people reach the point that, in spite of their best efforts and many legitimate reasons, can’t handle it. If they realize they are a danger to themselves or their kids, the safe haven laws are a real benefit. Good for them.
I just saw a film called Gumby Dharma about Art Clokey, the guy who created the Gumby series.
He was abandoned as a little boy when his Mom had an affair with a policeman and she took her daughters with her and moved to California, telling Art that he had to wait in the house until his Father came home from a business conference.
He lived with his Father for one year, then his dad was killed in a car wreck.
He went to live with his Mom and sisters, then the cop told his Mom after one week that she had to choose either the cop or her son. The cop hated Art because he looked like his Father, whom he had taken his (now-wife) away from.
The Mom chose the cop, and sent Art to an orphanage. It was hell for him until he was adopted a year later by Dr. Clokey, and his life was wonderful after that.
But it really damaged him...I just cannot fathom a woman leaving her son the first time, then...a year later, abandoning him at an orphanage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.