While Nebraska lawmakers mull over revisions to its current safe-haven law, I am at a complete loss for understanding this situation — not the law but its unintended consequences.  Someone explain to me how so many parents can see a legal loophole as an opportunity to abandon their children, some who are teenagers. 

In case you’re unfamiliar with Nebraska’s safe-haven law, here’s a brief update.  Like most states, Nebraska lawmakers wanted to make sure young children aren’t abandoned in unsafe places.  The law was intended to protect the youngest and most vulnerable of our population, newborn infants. Many states allow parents to leave newborns at a hospital without any criminal repercussions.  The laws are designed to ensure a child’s safety; hospitals provide a safe haven for infants when parents find they cannot care for a child.  No doubt, this option could save a child’s life.

But like many well-meaning laws, it has turned into a moral hazard  — the intended good has been counteracted by its misuse.  Because Nebraska didn’t put an age limit on the law, children of all ages are literally being dumped on hospital steps.  As of last count, 34 children have been left at hospitals. And most of these children aren’t infants. As a matter of fact, ages range from 5 to 17.

What goes through an 11 year old child’s mind when his parent leaves him at a public institution with no intention of returning? Does the parent tell the child what is happening? Or is he not told: Is he dropped off with the expectation of someone returning for him in a few hours? And how many times does his heart break when he discovers no one is returning for him? 

Extraordinary circumstances have probably brought parents to this point, but I believe with few exceptions — such as safety issues, there must be other alternatives. For some it could be churches, synagogues, or family. For others it could be social services. Even if it means placing children in new homes, it is better than abandonment. Parents can still play a role in that child’s life, or at the very least, they can stick around long enough to make sure their child finds a good home.

So who is at fault? Parents? Social services? Maybe it’s the Nebraska legislature, who unintentionally uncovered this problem? It speaks volumes that it’s not always parents leaving these children at hospitals, but relatives who have stepped in as caretakers; many of the parents are already out of the picture. According to USA Today, 22 of these children have parents who have been incarcerated at some point. So most of these children come from troubled homes. Abandoning these kids at a hospital is probably not the first time many of them have been pushed aside. This just legitimizes it.

Many people blame the social service system in Nebraska, claiming it is one of the worst in the country. Should social services have done more? Probably. But does that absolve parents of their responsibility? These children are human beings, not objects that you dump when they become too much of a burden. Right now there is a lot of finger pointing. Fingers are pointed at social services, state legislatures, and parents. A post at Type A Mom addresses the issue of social service outreach.

If these parents feel that they have reached the end of their rope and that abandonment is the only solution, then I would suggest that the social services systems have failed them. Nebraska’s dilemna should serve as a wake-up call to all 50 states - there is a need for emergency services to parents of teens. If services are already available (as has been suggested), then their effectiveness should be evaluated. Marketing campaigns should be launched to be sure parents are aware of the services available to them when desperation forces them to consider the unthinkable.

However, the Associated Press (”Neb. senators told safe-haven law exposes problem”, Nate Jenkins)reported today that lawmakers say help is available.

State officials disagreed with child welfare experts, state senators and others who criticized what they said was a lack of access to mental health and other services. Parents, the state officials say, are unnecessarily abandoning their children at hospitals.

Todd Landry, who oversees the state’s children and family services, said there are resources available to parents. “It is not the role of government to intervene in a family’s life” when children are not in danger, Landry said.

So again who is at fault? Or more importantly, how do we solve this problem? It’s not that I don’t feel any sympathy for these parents; I do, but I feel more sympathy for these abandoned children. If you aren’t willing to fight for your child, the very child you brought into this world and parented for the last five, ten, fifteen years, is there anything you would fight for?

Many of these children might be serious problems to their families, or society. Maybe living at home isn’t the best option. But there are other options. They deserve the extra effort to find an appropriate home. It shows them they are still worth it.  And if our children aren’t worth that extra effort, who in this world is?