Safe Haven
| October 1st, 2008 by Robert | Word Count: 677 | Reading Time 2:42 | 2,531 views |
We want to protect our youth, our children, and our infants. We want to have a place where these young ones can be taken care when their primary caregivers cannot. While implementing these ideas of how society “should” work, we have invited some potentially negative consequences. These “Safe Havens” some states are creating have led to situations the havens were not designed for. With the recent downturn in our markets, people are facing dire circumstances at home. They are losing their cars, houses, and ability to nurture their families. Wall Street is not the only victim here. The average US citizen is beginning to see real consequences of the economic crisis we are facing.
Some parents have decided that their children are better off being handed over to the safe havens established within their states rather than living in poverty with them. Most parents cannot fathom being placed in such a position, but the reality is some people are facing this choice. Lose everything and place your family under tremendous pressure living in poverty, or give them up to a safe haven where they will be cared for and fed healthy meals. The physical decision is easy. Of course giving them up for their safety and health would be a rational decision. However, the choice cannot be made simply upon the physical.
Emotional welfare is at stake here. Love from a parent cannot be 100% replaced. The feelings of abandonment can fester and destroy a person. Their ability to commit and love can be damaged, if not ruined for their lifetime. The very people who were supposed to love and care for them decided to give them up. How would you deal with that reality? If you haven’t been abandoned, can you really know how much harm is done?
As parents, our choices are tough when things are bad. We can sacrifice our own needs for the sake of the family. But when that isn’t enough and the entire family must sacrifice, how much is too much before everything collapses? Which is worse, a family living together in a tent with barely enough food to survive… or parents living in a tent barely surviving while their children are being taken care of in a safe haven? Is there a right answer to the situation?
Some of the older youth may decide to stay together and deal with the pain and issues of poverty because the family is more important than individual needs. But the infants and very young cannot express their needs. Their emotional and mental development is at such early stages they only know basic yes and no answers to how they feel if at all. What if we hold family so close that we choose staying together and the children are forced to live malnourished and under educated. Are the family ties worth the price of their entire future?
Serious questions, and the really sad part it, some families are facing these situations. In the past, families were able to make it by having relatives or very close friends care for children while the parents tried to get back on their feet. Our world has changed and families are largely disconnected and broken while close friends have become the rarest of individuals.
As our economy teeters on the brink of a serious recession, more and more families will be facing this decision. Hopefully, the ones who must give up their children have someone close to them who can undertake the responsibility of their children while they regain financial stability. State sponsored safe havens are not the answer even though they can satisfy all of the physical needs the children may have. Safe havens cannot replace the love and devotion of the family itself no matter how hard they try.
What are your thoughts and ideas regarding the safe havens? How would you react in these situations? Is there a better way to help those in need? Breaking up the family is the last thing that should be necessary. There must be a better way.
on October 1st, 2008 at 9:40 am:
We all hear about the devastation that divorce is putting on families in so many ways. What do you think this does? With the way things are going, families are going to be obsolete.
I know I’ve said it on a lot of your articles, but I truly think this is another sign of the times that has been written and that it’s all tied together. It’s just going to get worse.
To the parents who are dropping off their children and those who are thinking about it: The abandonment of a child does untold damage. I don’t care what you tell them. A child thinks from the heart, not with supposed adult logic. When the lights are out and they are alone in the quiet of a night, do you wonder what they think of? Do you think it’s an adult ‘understanding’ that my parents are so good to me that they dropped me off and abandoned me because it was better for me and shows how much they love me? I got news for you.. you are only fooling yourself, and I think if you were truly honest, not even that! An abandoned child wonders if they could have done ‘better’, wondering why they aren’t good enough. This same thinking happens every single time the child sees other kids with their own parents at a school function, out to eat, playing at the park, shopping…you get the idea.. EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING they do. Of course the child will think it’s much better for a stranger to give them a hug when they scraped their knee, had a bad dream, sharing their fear of the bully at school, wanting to talk about their first kiss…
So, please, just have the courtesy to call it what it is. Don’t say that it was best for the child. It was best for you. You were too overwhelmed or just didn’t want the stress anymore. Whatever…
It’s called abandonment.
on October 1st, 2008 at 1:38 pm:
Families have become an endangered species. Divorce rates are high, but divorces with families is a bigger issue in my opinion. The children being affected with split families go through abandonment issues also. More often than not, the split family cannot ever provide adequate time for the parents to nurture and grow their children effectively.
I agree with you about the abandonment charge against parents giving their children up. The only time I do see it as an option though is when the child is forced to live in squalor, without food, and without the ability to be educated. Teetering on the verge of starvation and death is one thing, but basic hard times is another.
Some people rationalize the treatment into being what’s best for the kids when in fact, it is what turns out to be what’s best for the parents. Very hard situation to be in, but the children should be the focal point. Their health and mental ability should be paramount.
on October 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm:
An example of the Safe Haven law at work. Reported on Fox News:
“Eleven children ranging in age from 1 to 17 were left at hospitals Wednesday under Nebraska’s unique safe haven law, which allows caregivers to abandon youngsters as old as 19 without fear of prosecution.
Nine of the children came from one family. The six boys and three girls were left by their father… Unrelated boys ages 11 and 15 also were surrendered.
At least 14 children have been abandoned under the state’s safe haven law since it took effect (Nebraska in July).
State Senator Arnie Stuthman says, “People are leaving them off just because they can’t control them. They’re probably in no real danger, so it’s an easy way out for the caretaker.”
He also stated, “Abandoning teenagers was not the original intent of the law.”
on October 1st, 2008 at 4:06 pm:
Government site with information regarding state Safe Haven laws:
Child Welfare.Gov
If you notice, most states place much lower age limits on their safe haven law as to protect newborn infants. Nebraska’s law has gone beyond the infant limit by allowing children up to age 19 be included because of fear of lawsuits regarding the determination of what “child” means.