WWTBAM Bored

I may have noticed this because our Frogman also has ten kids, but is more fortunate than this clan that made the news:

Nebraska dad... says he was overwhelmed.

An out-of-work widower abandoned nine of his ten children, aged 1 to 17. Nebraska law may be changed to allow only infant dropoffs.

My heart goes out to that dad and to his kids.

The article says some relatives have come forward now. I wonder how things could have been different if the dad had asked or the relatives had volunteered earlier. Could have saved some trauma to those kids, and to the dad.

and..... changing the law to only infants? wtf?

I wish you could drop off 35 year old daughters.

Bob Juch wrote:I wish you could drop off 35 year old daughters.

Sorry, Bob - but this really made me laugh.

peacock2121 wrote:My heart goes out to that dad and to his kids.

The article says some relatives have come forward now. I wonder how things could have been different if the dad had asked or the relatives had volunteered earlier. Could have saved some trauma to those kids, and to the dad.

and..... changing the law to only infants? wtf?

I can not tell if you have a question about changing it only to infants?

I previously had posted about this law. A "Safe Haven" law was long overdue in Nebraska, but things got muddled in the Unicameral, especially once "lame duck" State Senator Ernie Chambers became involved. At this point, there has not yet been a case where a young mother has utilized the law for a recently-delivered child, which is the purpose of a Safe Haven law.

There is considerable public debate on this topic. Some are saying that the expanded law is good, as it is allowing these kids to get out of a household that is not beneficial to them. Detractors point out that there already were methods and policies to handle such situations.

I was a big proponent of getting a Safe Haven law passed in Nebraska. My only hope is that this current "circus" does not cause a rejection of the underlying purpose: to let young mothers know that they do not need to have a child secretly and then abandon that child in a rest room or field, for example.

I like the way it turned out. It gave a desperate person an option and might have educated some others about other options. He really tried to do what was best for the kids rather than starve them or beat them or abandon them some place unsafe like what may have happened if not for the "flawed" law.

circus?!?

circus?!?

A family in pain and you call it a circus?

really?

what mini said.

She was not as outraged as me

It always comes out better when outrage is not present.

peacock2121 wrote:what mini said.

She was not as outraged as me

It always comes out better when outrage is not present.

Yeah, but you don't get the TV contracts my way.

minimetoo26 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:what mini said.

She was not as outraged as me

It always comes out better when outrage is not present.

Yeah, but you don't get the TV contracts my way.

LOL - that is true.

peacock2121 wrote:circus?!?

circus?!?

A family in pain and you call it a circus?

really?

I am not calling the turning over of kids a "circus". I am calling the media's reaction (local and national) to all of the teenagers being left at hospitals a "circus".

One of the things that the article did not note was that the mother apparently was a bit "off". Despite the family's financial problems, she actively pursued having kids. She had a stroke right after having thier last child, and then died a few months later.

It is a sad story. However, it was uplifting to hear how the teenage daughter was able to care for her siblings and still remain devoted enough to her schoolwork to be on track to graduate early from high school.