Law Lets Nebraska Parents Leave Kids
OMAHA, Neb. (Aug. 22) - Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19.
While lawmakers may not have intended it, the month-old law raises the possibility that frustrated parents could drop off misbehaving teens or even severely disabled older children with impunity.
A safe-haven sign hangs at the Alegent Health Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, Neb.
A safe-haven sign hangs at the Alegent Health Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, Neb.
"Whether the kid is disabled or unruly or just being a hormonal teenager, the state is saying: 'Hey, we have a really easy option for you,'" said Adam Pertman, executive director of a New York adoption institute and a frequent critic of safe-haven laws.
Nebraska's approach is surprising because it is the last state in the nation to adopt a safe-haven law.
But instead of following the lead of other states, which focus on the abandonment of newborns, lawmakers here wanted to extend the protection to all minors. And in Nebraska, that goes all the way up to age 19.
"All children deserve our protection," said Sen. Tom White, who helped broaden the measure. "If we save one child from being abused, it's well, well worth it."
White said it doesn't matter if that child is an infant or three years old or in the care of a parent or baby sitter. As for what constitutes a minor, he refers to common law, which interprets it to be anyone under age 14.
State Sen. Arnie Stuthman, who introduced the original bill dealing only with infants, agreed to the compromise after the bill became stalled in debate.
"The main interest I have is that it gives the mother or a parent another option of what to do with a child before they do something drastic," he said.
The measure, which took effect July 18, does not absolve people of possible criminal charges — for example, if a child had been beaten.
And since the law does not specify, it technically allows anyone, not just a parent, to legally surrender custody. Most other states narrowly define the role of the person surrendering the child.
Some hospitals have fielded questions from the public about the law, but no children have been dropped off.
"I hope there never is one," Stuthman said.
Pertman, who directs the New York-based Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said his research going back several years shows safe-haven laws are not accomplishing what they intended. Women who are distressed enough to want to abandon their children are not the ones reading billboards or getting the message about these laws, he said.
Pertman finds Nebraska's law particularly alarming because it is not focused on infants and parents.
Casting such a wide net "circumvents every rational practice in child welfare that I'm aware of," he said. "That's as nicely as I can put it."
California, for example, allows parents to legally abandon a child at a hospital or other designated safe zones within 72 hours of birth.
The brevity of the law could trigger litigation over its meaning, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor.
"This law is obviously written in almost skeletal form," he said. "Drafters will sometimes try to say as little as possible so they don't create ambiguity, but drafters here succeeded in writing the law in such a limited fashion that the entire provision is ambiguous."
Nebraska lawmakers acknowledge the courts will have to sort out the details, and they have said they are open to revisiting the legislation if necessary.
The Nebraska Hospital Association has been working to help its 85 member hospitals statewide establish procedures for dealing with abandonment cases.
Sen. Ernie Chambers, who voted against the law, said he would prefer to address the reasons that parents abandon their children rather than offer them safe haven.
"I don't think such laws are wise," he said.
Kathy Bigsby Moore, executive director of the child advocacy group Voices for Children in Nebraska, said she also worries how the law might affect adoption rates.
"The sad thing is we have plenty of other mechanisms for people to use," she said. "I'm not sure the safe-haven law is really going to help in a majority of cases."
OMAHA, Neb. (Aug. 22) - Nebraska's new "safe-haven" law allowing parents to abandon unwanted children at hospitals with no questions asked is unique in a significant way: It goes beyond babies and potentially permits the abandonment of anyone under 19.
While lawmakers may not have intended it, the month-old law raises the possibility that frustrated parents could drop off misbehaving teens or even severely disabled older children with impunity.
A safe-haven sign hangs at the Alegent Health Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, Neb.
A safe-haven sign hangs at the Alegent Health Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, Neb.
"Whether the kid is disabled or unruly or just being a hormonal teenager, the state is saying: 'Hey, we have a really easy option for you,'" said Adam Pertman, executive director of a New York adoption institute and a frequent critic of safe-haven laws.
Nebraska's approach is surprising because it is the last state in the nation to adopt a safe-haven law.
But instead of following the lead of other states, which focus on the abandonment of newborns, lawmakers here wanted to extend the protection to all minors. And in Nebraska, that goes all the way up to age 19.
"All children deserve our protection," said Sen. Tom White, who helped broaden the measure. "If we save one child from being abused, it's well, well worth it."
White said it doesn't matter if that child is an infant or three years old or in the care of a parent or baby sitter. As for what constitutes a minor, he refers to common law, which interprets it to be anyone under age 14.
State Sen. Arnie Stuthman, who introduced the original bill dealing only with infants, agreed to the compromise after the bill became stalled in debate.
"The main interest I have is that it gives the mother or a parent another option of what to do with a child before they do something drastic," he said.
The measure, which took effect July 18, does not absolve people of possible criminal charges — for example, if a child had been beaten.
And since the law does not specify, it technically allows anyone, not just a parent, to legally surrender custody. Most other states narrowly define the role of the person surrendering the child.
Some hospitals have fielded questions from the public about the law, but no children have been dropped off.
"I hope there never is one," Stuthman said.
Pertman, who directs the New York-based Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said his research going back several years shows safe-haven laws are not accomplishing what they intended. Women who are distressed enough to want to abandon their children are not the ones reading billboards or getting the message about these laws, he said.
Pertman finds Nebraska's law particularly alarming because it is not focused on infants and parents.
Casting such a wide net "circumvents every rational practice in child welfare that I'm aware of," he said. "That's as nicely as I can put it."
California, for example, allows parents to legally abandon a child at a hospital or other designated safe zones within 72 hours of birth.
The brevity of the law could trigger litigation over its meaning, said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor.
"This law is obviously written in almost skeletal form," he said. "Drafters will sometimes try to say as little as possible so they don't create ambiguity, but drafters here succeeded in writing the law in such a limited fashion that the entire provision is ambiguous."
Nebraska lawmakers acknowledge the courts will have to sort out the details, and they have said they are open to revisiting the legislation if necessary.
The Nebraska Hospital Association has been working to help its 85 member hospitals statewide establish procedures for dealing with abandonment cases.
Sen. Ernie Chambers, who voted against the law, said he would prefer to address the reasons that parents abandon their children rather than offer them safe haven.
"I don't think such laws are wise," he said.
Kathy Bigsby Moore, executive director of the child advocacy group Voices for Children in Nebraska, said she also worries how the law might affect adoption rates.
"The sad thing is we have plenty of other mechanisms for people to use," she said. "I'm not sure the safe-haven law is really going to help in a majority of cases."
In Louisiana u can dump em off at a few different places... fire stations, police stations,hospitals, etc. And if your a Senator here u can drop them off at the superdome or just leave them on the side of the interstate, either 1 is fine with Katrina Mary.
Last call for those of you that may want to get rid of your older kids
http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10486818
LINCOLN - Nebraska lawmakers didn't want another abandoned baby on their consciences when their 2008 session ended.
There had been three since they adjourned in 2007 - two newborns left at hospitals and one wrapped in a flowered dress and tucked between a discarded television and a trash bin at an Omaha apartment complex.
Nor did lawmakers want to leave Nebraska as the only state without a safe haven law.
Being one of the last two states had drawn national media attention and sparked passionate local campaigns for a law. Both the Omaha and Lincoln City Councils passed resolutions calling for a law. Now Alaska was on its way to enacting the 49th safe haven law.
But last winter, once again, the safe haven bill was foundering in Nebraska and appeared headed for defeat.
That's when a group of senators came up with a unique and minimalist approach to safe haven.
Their two-sentence compromise offered protection from prosecution for leaving a child at a hospital, eliminating the controversial sections of the original bill and offeringsafe haven to children of all ages.
The compromise passed Feb. 7 on a 41-1 vote. Gov. Dave Heineman signed it into law a week later. The law took effect July 18, and the first child was dropped off Sept. 1.
Since then, 35 children from 26 families have been left under the law. Just Thursday, a woman from Sarpy County left her 5-year-old son at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, and another mother left two teenagers at Methodist Hospital in Omaha.
Most of the children left have been teenagers or preteens. None has been an infant.
Five have been brought to Nebraska from other states.
The mounting numbers prompted Heineman to call the Legislature into special session, starting today, to limit the law to newborns.
State Sen. Pete Pirsch of Omaha, who led the compromise negotiations, said lawmakers made the change in the safe haven age limits knowingly. He said he agreed because he wanted something passed to protect infants.
"That was the price to be paid, the poison to be swallowed," he said. "If we hadn't done it, the bill would not have passed, and we would have to start again in 2009.
Pirsch said he expected that some older children might be dropped off under the law. But neither he nor other lawmakers predicted the volume that has developed.
The sponsor of the safe haven bill, Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, said he knew the compromise opened the door to older children. But he made a calculation of the risks and benefits and opted to support the change.
"I felt I was sacrificing, but I thought if we could save just one baby, it would be worth it," he said. "I think people felt they did not want to see another youngster dropped off in a Dumpster."
Stuthman had been the latest senator to take up the torch for a safe haven bill. At least two others tried without success during previous sessions.
Stuthman didn't have much luck, either, in 2007. His bill got out of committee but stalled in the full Legislature. It came up for first-round debate three times during the session.
Each time, Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha stood in its way.
Chambers argued that the state should not condone babies being abandoned. If lawmakers really wanted to help infants and children, he said, they should fund prenatal care, food stamps and other services and work to change the stigma on pregnant, unmarried teenagers.
Others had concerns about the proposal, too.
Among them was Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln,who was concerned about putting the babies in the state's foster care system. Sen. Mike Friend of Omaha worried that a safe haven law could encourage infant abandonment in the same way, he said, that no-fault divorce encouraged the breakup of marriages.
Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln cited studies in states with safe haven laws showing that, after passage of the law, as many infants have been left to die as have been left in safe havens.
Sen. Gwen Howard of Omaha said the proposed safe haven procedures would undermine traditional adoption and child welfare practices.
The Nebraska Medical Association and the Nebraska Hospital Association objected to the liability of caring for babies without knowing any medical history. Voices for Children and private adoption agencies argued that mothers should have counseling, fathers should be afforded rights and babies should someday be able to know their family medical history.
Stuthman tried between the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions to find an acceptable middle ground among the parties.
But the amendment he offered when first-round debate resumed in January raised another flurry of objections. The bill appeared to be sinking.
That's when Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk started pushing senators to find common ground. Before debate ended Jan. 16, he and others described the compromise taking shape.
"Broadly and generally stated," Chambers said, "you would allow any caregiver who felt a child in his or her care is endangered to present that child to the hospital and that would not be abandonment carrying a criminal penalty."
The compromise didn't earn Chambers' vote for the bill, but he did agree not to block the bill's passage.
Sen. Tom White of Omaha, the chief proponent of expanding the age limit, offered his rationale for broadening the law's reach.
"A child doesn't stop deserving protection when they're 72 hours old," he said. "If a child is at risk of being abused, I think the sense of the senators is we want to give the person in charge of that child every opportunity to deliver it to a safe place and protect it."
During second-round debate, before lawmakers adopted the compromise amendment, two senators raised questions about the expanded coverage.
First Howard and, later, Sen. John Harms of Scottsbluff asked about the definition of the word "child" and whether it would allow people to drop off teenagers. Harms questioned whether the bill should set a limit on the child's age.
Pirsch answered that the courts probably would interpret child to mean a minor, that is, up through age 18. He said the consensus of those who worked out the compromise had been that concern about a child's safety and best interest shouldn't end at 3 days or 30 days or 1 year.
Stuthman also said the child's safety was the prime concern.
"Thank you, Sen. Stuthman," Howard said. "The last thing I want is any unintended consequen
http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10486818
LINCOLN - Nebraska lawmakers didn't want another abandoned baby on their consciences when their 2008 session ended.
There had been three since they adjourned in 2007 - two newborns left at hospitals and one wrapped in a flowered dress and tucked between a discarded television and a trash bin at an Omaha apartment complex.
Nor did lawmakers want to leave Nebraska as the only state without a safe haven law.
Being one of the last two states had drawn national media attention and sparked passionate local campaigns for a law. Both the Omaha and Lincoln City Councils passed resolutions calling for a law. Now Alaska was on its way to enacting the 49th safe haven law.
But last winter, once again, the safe haven bill was foundering in Nebraska and appeared headed for defeat.
That's when a group of senators came up with a unique and minimalist approach to safe haven.
Their two-sentence compromise offered protection from prosecution for leaving a child at a hospital, eliminating the controversial sections of the original bill and offeringsafe haven to children of all ages.
The compromise passed Feb. 7 on a 41-1 vote. Gov. Dave Heineman signed it into law a week later. The law took effect July 18, and the first child was dropped off Sept. 1.
Since then, 35 children from 26 families have been left under the law. Just Thursday, a woman from Sarpy County left her 5-year-old son at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha, and another mother left two teenagers at Methodist Hospital in Omaha.
Most of the children left have been teenagers or preteens. None has been an infant.
Five have been brought to Nebraska from other states.
The mounting numbers prompted Heineman to call the Legislature into special session, starting today, to limit the law to newborns.
State Sen. Pete Pirsch of Omaha, who led the compromise negotiations, said lawmakers made the change in the safe haven age limits knowingly. He said he agreed because he wanted something passed to protect infants.
"That was the price to be paid, the poison to be swallowed," he said. "If we hadn't done it, the bill would not have passed, and we would have to start again in 2009.
Pirsch said he expected that some older children might be dropped off under the law. But neither he nor other lawmakers predicted the volume that has developed.
The sponsor of the safe haven bill, Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, said he knew the compromise opened the door to older children. But he made a calculation of the risks and benefits and opted to support the change.
"I felt I was sacrificing, but I thought if we could save just one baby, it would be worth it," he said. "I think people felt they did not want to see another youngster dropped off in a Dumpster."
Stuthman had been the latest senator to take up the torch for a safe haven bill. At least two others tried without success during previous sessions.
Stuthman didn't have much luck, either, in 2007. His bill got out of committee but stalled in the full Legislature. It came up for first-round debate three times during the session.
Each time, Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha stood in its way.
Chambers argued that the state should not condone babies being abandoned. If lawmakers really wanted to help infants and children, he said, they should fund prenatal care, food stamps and other services and work to change the stigma on pregnant, unmarried teenagers.
Others had concerns about the proposal, too.
Among them was Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln,who was concerned about putting the babies in the state's foster care system. Sen. Mike Friend of Omaha worried that a safe haven law could encourage infant abandonment in the same way, he said, that no-fault divorce encouraged the breakup of marriages.
Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln cited studies in states with safe haven laws showing that, after passage of the law, as many infants have been left to die as have been left in safe havens.
Sen. Gwen Howard of Omaha said the proposed safe haven procedures would undermine traditional adoption and child welfare practices.
The Nebraska Medical Association and the Nebraska Hospital Association objected to the liability of caring for babies without knowing any medical history. Voices for Children and private adoption agencies argued that mothers should have counseling, fathers should be afforded rights and babies should someday be able to know their family medical history.
Stuthman tried between the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions to find an acceptable middle ground among the parties.
But the amendment he offered when first-round debate resumed in January raised another flurry of objections. The bill appeared to be sinking.
That's when Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk started pushing senators to find common ground. Before debate ended Jan. 16, he and others described the compromise taking shape.
"Broadly and generally stated," Chambers said, "you would allow any caregiver who felt a child in his or her care is endangered to present that child to the hospital and that would not be abandonment carrying a criminal penalty."
The compromise didn't earn Chambers' vote for the bill, but he did agree not to block the bill's passage.
Sen. Tom White of Omaha, the chief proponent of expanding the age limit, offered his rationale for broadening the law's reach.
"A child doesn't stop deserving protection when they're 72 hours old," he said. "If a child is at risk of being abused, I think the sense of the senators is we want to give the person in charge of that child every opportunity to deliver it to a safe place and protect it."
During second-round debate, before lawmakers adopted the compromise amendment, two senators raised questions about the expanded coverage.
First Howard and, later, Sen. John Harms of Scottsbluff asked about the definition of the word "child" and whether it would allow people to drop off teenagers. Harms questioned whether the bill should set a limit on the child's age.
Pirsch answered that the courts probably would interpret child to mean a minor, that is, up through age 18. He said the consensus of those who worked out the compromise had been that concern about a child's safety and best interest shouldn't end at 3 days or 30 days or 1 year.
Stuthman also said the child's safety was the prime concern.
"Thank you, Sen. Stuthman," Howard said. "The last thing I want is any unintended consequen
