It's not so simple until we know all the details. Sometimes 15 year olds and 11 year olds are completely out of control, refusing to obey the law. After being brought back home by the police time after time after time, what other choice does a guardian have at times?

Maybe she wanted her money back? Or an exchange or upgrade? Since some parents think of their kids as accessories anyways, it's pretty logical that this was going to happen.

If the kids were that bad, she could have sent them to boot camp.

I would have sold them on e-bay, if they were my kids, maybe to a nice man in eastern europe making kiddie porn.

Who wants to lay odds on wether or not these mothers will be forcd to pay child support to reimburse the state for the welfare funds these kids will recive.

Funny thought though, a man who wants custody is abusive and contolling but a woman who abbandons teenagers is a good mother

Also Robert W do you think perhaps we wouldnt have so many child deliquents if parents were not threatened with jail for punishing their children?

>>Funny thought though, a man who wants custody is abusive and contolling but a woman who abbandons teenagers is a good mother

Fucks sake, lujlp.

Try to at least vaguely pretend to make sense!

No one is calling these teenager-dumpers (one is clearly NOT the mother - she's an aunt) "good mothers".

They certainly should be made to pay child support. Why should we have to support their choices/poor parenting? I'm for workfare, too. And prisonerfare. You did some crime and you're in prison? You pay your room and board...PLUS victim restitution...and only when you're paid up do you get out.

Loojy, are you channeling Jeff or something? (posted with tongue firmly in cheek)

Look, I've seen a lot of kids that are/were juvies before they were 10 years old. Most have had little-to-no adult supervision, and what little there was manifested as crack-smoking, alcoholic pervs. Kids learn what they live with. If they're in a bad environment, and see other kids doing shit and getting away with it, they'll do it too. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. A relative or foster parent steps in, tries to do some good, gets frustrated, they're at their wits' end, what are they supposed to do? Some kids just cannot be disciplined, and can be a danger to themselves and others. Thank the gods these 2 women at least had somewhere safe to take those kids. Other kids are so lucky, you know. And if the parent has his/her own issues and isn't coping well (or at all) would you still want the child in that situation? Some people just aren't cut out to be parents. A lot don't figure that out until it's too frakkin' late. But if, by bringing the child somewhere where he will be safe, isn't that better than leaving said child to fend for himself? (Which is not to these women should be totally absolved of their responsibilities.)

Want to bet Jody? I'm sure there are people out there saying how brave of these women to make choices to get their lives in order.

Notice that the only children abandoned so far are males?

Well, on the one hand, better she does this than simply disappears on them one night. If things get to this point, I suspect it is not because the kids failed to get straight As this semester for the first time.

On the other hand, the point that divorced non-custodial parents (cough men cough) get saddled with child-raising costs should remind us that asking the state to take oversight over the kids does not absolve the parents from financial responsibility for them. Pay up, parents, even if you cannot parent your child for some reason!

I have a pretty dark sense of humor, but I thought this was not at all funny: "I would have sold them on e-bay, if they were my kids, maybe to a nice man in eastern europe making kiddie porn."

What ongoing childhood tragedy is next up for yuks at the dinner party, clitorectomies?

Yeah. These are all fun responsibilitarian jokes to make. but I bet if you talked to the kids, it's not like they'd be dying for Mom & Dad to come and pick them up and try it out again. They're probably well aware the their parents aren't up to it. Rather than feeling abandoned, they're probably just pissed-off teenagers.

That's doesn't mean they should become wards of the state, but let's not be too surprised when some child-rearing enterprises hit a rough patch in the middle- or later-distance. I know a lot of families that it's happened to. One of the dearest women in my life was raised by a single mother. I've met the mother, and she's as wonderful as the daughter. But apparently, in the fifteenth year, they were both considering murder/suicide scenarios, so the daughter moved out with a friendly family for a year.

>>Want to bet Jody? I'm sure there are people out there saying how brave of these women to make choices to get their lives in order.

Sweet lujlp -
I cannot take you seriously in this mood (yours & mine!).

I am sure there are also people out there saying this is a fabulous week for American capitalism too.

Y'know what? I'm not listening to their nonsense!

I agree Spartee about the dark sense of humor. Me too but that was totally over the line.

However, I agree lujlp on this one. These two assholes should be charged with child abandonment. I don't care how freaking bad these kids were (and we don't even know if they were, why is it being assumed?), you don't abandon them. And, no, it doesn't matter if you were the biological mother or someone else who stepped up to the plate (note the aunt was the legal guardian). You don't get to quit on parenthood. Honestly, anyone who thinks that's okay should be immediately sterilized.

And, please, don't be naive and assume this shit only happens to bad kids. One thing that can be assumed is it only comes from bad parents that the kids are indeed better off without. My mother was always threatening this shit and we were terrified of it. My one sister did finally call her bluff and requested to be placed in foster care. She was placed in a nice home and thrived, got a good banking job, and lived a pretty good life even though she's also been diagonosed schizophrenic. The other sister with mental illness has disappeared from sight after being in and out of mental hospitals before that from age 13 on. In other words, one learned to manage her illness and one didn't and the difference seems pretty obvious. Requesting to be placed in a foster home was probably the best thing she ever did for herself. Her foster parents treated her like a daughter, even giving her a wedding when she married; our parents did not.

These kids are probably scared out of their wits right now even if they are covering it with false bravado (which we also don't know if they are) and acting out. If they are truly bad, ask yourself why and if the ones who made them that way should really get off the freaking hook?

And, fuck all, child support goes without saying though it should come from both parents.

Once again Flynne demonstrates her wisdom.

My wife and I took a 12-year old foster child once whose mother had died and whose father was an unfit parent. An unfit human being. If the foster care system in our county had tried to get child support out of him, they might as well have pissed up a rope, because he squandered on booze any money he ever got hold of, which was very little and very seldom.

The kid's aunt had taken him in, but had given up trying to curb his violence and called Social Services. They sent him to us. We couldn't curb it, either. He yelled at us, kicked in walls and doors, threw the gifts we had given him down the stairs. We tried for two years. One night when he suggested he was ready to stab my wife, I flew into a rage and hit him. Thank goodness I broke my own hand, and not his head.

We called Social Services. His case worker called the police, who were on their way to our house (I had given them directions), and assured them they didn't need to come; she would handle it. She did. Packed the kid up and found a new place for him, while I went to the emergency room to get my hand x-rayed.

We never learned any details about how things went at his next foster home(s), but there is sort of a happy ending. My wife met him by chance 4 or 5 years later. He had straightened up enough not to go to jail, and to get a job working for the railroad. He seemed to be on his way to *not* becoming his father. Hope so.

So now you know what is maybe the worst thing about me. I am a child abuser. Former child abuser. We used corporal punishment on our children, but neither my wife nor I ever struck them in a fit of temper.

Sorry, I thought it was pretty funny. In a capitalist society, somebody's got to pay for their upkeep. Since violence and death seem to be less horrible than sex to many conservatives in the US, maybe they should be killed as prey in a Manhunt kind of situation-just as long as they don't have sex GOD FORBID!
Get a sense of humour.

Sub prime parenting costs everyone dearly, a little like the other sub prime thing...

And, fuck all, child support goes without saying though it should come from both parents. (T's Grammy)

You got that right, T. They gotta' pay for their children.

I think it should also work the other way around. If parents have children they can't support, that's sufficient to prove the parents unfit. Take the kids, and garnish the parent's wages for child support. Don't tax the rest of us for welfare benefits to people whose only qualification is that they can't responsibly control their reproductive organs.

Sub prime parenting costs everyone dearly, a little like the other sub prime thing... (Jody)

Heh. Good one.

lujlp says: Funny thought though, a man who wants custody is abusive and contolling but a woman who abbandons teenagers is a good mother

Further, a man who walks away from his children is a scumbag that should be pursued to the gates of hell and forced to pay, pay, pay until his teeth squeak.

And, no, I am not a bitter divorced man who went through a terrible custody battle, got shafted and now hates women, nor am I a "deadbeat dad" who hates making his child support payments because they take away money he could be spending on his luxury condo and 19 year old secretary (because thats what all these deadbeats do, ya know). I've seen too much to fail to note the distinctions - a woman abandons her children = noble victim driven to her wits end by a cold cruel male dominated world. A man who abandons his children - well, thank god cigarette smokers came along to take on the mantle of most hated villain in the universe.

a woman abandons her children = noble victim driven to her wits end by a cold cruel male dominated world. A man who abandons his children - [...] most hated villain in the universe. (WolfmanMac)

Yep. A lot of modern women simultaneously desire equality and special treatment. Overlooking the logical impossibility of simultaneously satisfying contradictory desires, these women blame men, the patriarchy, for their problems.

Such nonsensical excuses are not, nor ever have been, available for men. And that's a good thing.

"A lot of modern women simultaneously desire equality and special treatment. Overlooking the logical impossibility of simultaneously satisfying contradictory desires, these women blame men, the patriarchy, for their problems."

Oh crap, I'm not typically one to pick a fight on these boards, and the fact that I'm going to disagree with Jeff the second of both times I've ever addressed one of his comments.....nothing personal, Jeff! :

....however that's exactly what I'm about to do. Is it not possible to say that men also have contradictory desires, and blame women for the resulting problems? Such as when a woman gets pregnant by a man who didn't want to procreate; he just wants the act itself without the biological responsibilities. I'd say that qualifies as contradicting desires. She's screwed all ways, he's at least screwed financially. A common, sometimes nonsensical excuse is that she "trapped him". I say "sometimes" because it can be a valid excuse but it's not always the case, takes two to tango, 'natch. How many times have we seen this scenario played out? How many men blame all the problems in their life on a woman/ all women for this reason? Perhaps there is a nonsensical excuse being used after all.

TsG.
Can't charge the dumpers with abandonment cause the great state of Nebraska made leaving the little monsters at a hospital a legal thing to do. Parents with hard case teens rejoice! Got bad kids even though everyone knows you are good people? Consider vacationing in Ohmaha! Of course this will leave you short a tax deduction when you get home but it may be worth to not have to look at police cars in the driveway again.

Juliana says - How many men blame all the problems in their life on a woman/ all women for this reason?

Hard to answer that question. But lets say a lot for purposes of discussion.
Now tell me how many men make a lot of money writing books, running websites, publicly speaking, setting up "gender studies courses" and recieving tenure at major universities, are called to testify before congress about proposed laws to address their "conflicting desires," are asked to quite literally write laws that address them, are able to turn their own misfortune at best and "conflicting desires" at worst into profitable careers as professional victims, and appear on T.V. stations dedicated to demonstrating night, after tedious night, how hard done by their gender is? How many men have the power to have a woman ejected from her home in the middle of the night and forced to appear in court on the strength of allegations that are evidenced by nothing more than his word? How many men have the power to have a woman arrested on sight for allegations of abuse? How many men have the power to ruin a womans life by false allegations of rape or abuse that in some cases, allegedly occurred years ago? How many men have the power to falsely identify a woman as the mother of a child, and have her on the hook for 18 years of child support because, although the authorities admit she is not the parent of the child, she missed the filing date to contest her name on the birth certificate?

I could go on, and tediously on like this, but you get my point.

Now how many feminists enjoy that same privilege?

Jeff says a lot with his last comment - that men don't have these idiotic excuses and federal funding for their bad life choices is a good thing. I don't want to see a world in which men have these excuses available to them, or have the nauseatingly lopsided power over women that the law presently affords women over men (with feminists caterwauling about the "inequality" all the while).
I want to see a world in which this power, these excuses are removed from women. THAT is equality, ladies - time to ante up and walk your talk. Or don't - but if you choose not to, don't expect me or anyone else to regard you as an equal.

When I asked "how many feminists enjoy that same privilege," I meant "how many women." My apologies.

I'm assuming that birth control is sold in the US? Just wondering-I think that would prevent the little monsters from being created in the first place. And if men really wanted women not to saddle them with child support, they would all be actively lobbying for abortion on demand.

So 2 points-use birth control (you know, condoms) and abortion.

The pendulum has gone too far in favour of women in all the areas Wolfman mentioned, so I'm sure they will swing back to something more rationale, if guys keep fighting back.

WolfManMac-

You listed several very good points; specifically the one about men not about to "have the nauseatingly lopsided power over women that the law presently affords women over men"

...and so did Chrissy, with her point that the pendulum has swung too far. Consider this, in the context of legal power issues. Recalling the history of women's legal rights- The first wave of feminism addressed property rights (women couldn't own any, any inherited property went straight to the hubby), reproductive rights (women had none, husbands had the final say), and the "chattel" issue (wife and kids are the physical property of hubby). I'd say the balance of power was rather nauseatingly lopsided at that point as well. Hopefully, after we're all done beating the @#$% out of each other, the pendulum will rest at center and we'll have some wisdom from the whole experience.

On the plus side, back then, two kids dropped off at a "safe place" would have been returned to their dad as his property and problem. Wonder where the dads are for these boys....

For the life of me...I cannot imagine under any circumstances abandoning my little ones, even when they're not so little anymore.

What could be more disgraceful, base, or dishonorable than abandoning one's own?

> Wonder where the dads are for
> these boys....

Yeah.

Juliana says: The first wave of feminism addressed property rights (women couldn't own any, any inherited property went straight to the hubby), reproductive rights (women had none, husbands had the final say), and the "chattel" issue (wife and kids are the physical property of hubby). I'd say the balance of power was rather nauseatingly lopsided at that point as well.

Two things - One detail completely left out of the description of life when "women were chattels" is this - when a wife ran up debts the family couldn't pay, the man was held responsible. When a wife committed crimes, the husband was held to answer for it. The man did have "nauseatingly lopsided power" in the relationship - he also was held 100% responsible for his wife and families well being. Does this mitigate the fact that it was a "nauseatingly lopsided power?" No. What it does is illustrate that in that time, power was inextricable from responsibility. Today, men are still held to those responsibilities - women are legally (and when not legally, socially through zeitgeist)given the nauseatingly lopsided power.
And feminists still tell me women are virtual slaves in western culture?
Second, by invoking "past discrimination" (on any topic)here is what is being said - "Once upon a time, people who shared your physical characteristics were mean to people who shared my physical characteristics. It is wrong for people to be mean to others based on their physical characteristics. I believe that so deeply and strongly that now I am excusing people with my physical characteristics being mean to people with your physical characteristics. Why? because it is wrong for people to be mean to others based on their physical characteristics."
That argument admits that the driving force of the movement using that excuse is and can be nothing more than opportunism.

Posted by: Robert at September 18, 2008 6:44 PM
What could be more disgraceful, base, or dishonorable than abandoning one's own?

While I agree with your sentiment, offhand Robert, I'd say "drowning them in a bathtub"
to name one example. But there is, I think, something even MORE disgraceful than even THAT - that would have to be "making excuses for that behavior."

Well, said, wolfman, straight through to the end.

I was agreeing with Robert but, yes, your two examples -- especially that last -- are more disgraceful still.

And utterly, utterly on the cries of discrimination. We so need to put an end to it. Just make adults have the same rights and responsibilites regardless of gender, race or creed, put a period at the end of this sentence and move on. No more special rights for anyone.

If both genders are to equal in this ideal future, the issue of reproductive freedom is something that has to be dealt with. Conservative men can't argue on one hand that abortion should be illegal and contraception tightly controlled (like the morning after pill, for example), and then complain when women get pregnant and want money from men to raise the 'fruit of their loins'.

Biology dictates that women are left holding the bag after sex, which isn't fair, but it is reality.

Chrissy the asshats calling for the end of abortion and a bonfire for BC are not the ones complaining about child support

In fct most of the guys complaining about child support arent complaining about payig it but the lack of visitation, the draconian calculations and the imposibility for getting downward reductions due to layoffs or illness.

In no other court are 'victims' awarded damages based on what the judge THINKS the guy is capable of earning

"you were earnin 80,000 a year working construction before you legs were amputated Mr. Johnson, dont tell me you only get 2000 in disability now.

Case in point, I have two divorced friends. One maried again and his child support is now based on the combined earnings of him and his new wife

The other guys wife married into th familly that owns most of the local waterparks her new husband has millions - do you suppose hr husbands income was factored in to the equasion? Of course not

Well, it was better than killing them. I have a friend, married with 3 little kids, just found out that as of sunday, she'll have a 14 year old boy as well. Seems her hubby had a kid before they got together with some nutcase, who has given this kis a really crappy 14 years and now says she can't handle him anymore. Fortunately for the boy, my friend is great, and up for the challenge, and his life is going to improve dramatically.

So I don't think shitty parents abandoning older kids is all that rare, or new. I think it's just the "leaving at the hospital" thing that's novel here.

"based on the combined earnings of him and his new wife"??? lujlp, he must have had the shittiest attorney in the world. New wife is utterly not liable to support the other women's children.

I don't know about these two kids, but what about the ones who physically threaten or assault their parents? The law says the parents are responsible for their kids and the law says the parents can't do much to control them.

My kids were wonderful, but all are not.

I'd want to know more than what some newspaper article says before I'd opine on this one.

Life can be tough. Treatment of the mentally ill in this country is less than optimal. Bad things happen to people who don't deserve it.

Here's the problem I have with the criticism in this the first instance instance - the women is not the mother, she's his aunt. She may well not have contributed to the mess and was in fact trying to clean up the mess made by a sibling. Or the kid could have went off the deep end after losing a parent and become impossible to deal with. It may even be that she just wasn't prepared to deal with this responsibility.

Whatever the reason, I just don't think she ranks the same as someone who is abandoning their own child.

Small complaint: This happened in Lincoln, not Omaha as you indicate. The two cities are separated by about 50 miles.