Even teens could find 'haven'
By JEAN ORTIZ / The Associated Press
OMAHA — Nebraska’s new “safe-haven’’ law, which allows 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.
“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 was 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.
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 didn’t matter whether that child was an infant or 3 years old or in the care of a parent or baby sitter. As for who 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 because 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 showed safe-haven laws were not accomplishing what they intended to. 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 worried about 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.’’

Facebook
del.icio.us
Fark It
Reddit


Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
Let me just begin to spell out some of the ways that this bill is going to get abused, our taxes rise, and societal morals will go down
1) Under 19 and homeless?....Not anymore, they'll show up at the hospitals for 3 hots and a cot, taxpayer paid medical, etc.
2) Under 19 and pregnant without a job or insurance...head for the taxpayer paid for hospital and get in line, we'll be glad to get ya fixed up, checked out, immunizations current, a couple good meals and a bed for a period, etc.
3) Can't find a babysitter for the weekend getaway? Take'm to the hospital and then come back after the weekend and say you changed your mind. (probably only gonna work once, so you better make sure it counts.)
4) All the teaching about ethics, morals, birth control, responsibility....out the window. "Accidently" got pregnant? No worries, just leave the baby at the hospital where it was born, get back out there and make a few more...why not, theirs no repercussions.
I'm not trying to be the heartless cynic, but these are just a few ways that I see this ridiculous law getting abused very very soon! Why not model it after the other 49 states before us that enacted such a law? Why include grown "children" that could / should become contributing members of society? We are already taxed on so many things and at such high rates, why make it worse? Why not make the law prgressive to where the parents have to at least pay X dollars for every month over 6 months old that the child is that they abandon.....you bring in your six year old, you better have a darn big pocket full of cash so that the state is subsidized for the foster care, you bring in a 13 year old, it better be even bigger, you bring in your 18 year old, you had better have a checkbook, the kid better have his education, and a few ideas of what is expected of adults in our society.....jobs, self sustainment, responsibility, etc.
Again, I not being a cynic, but this law needs to be changed NOW, before it goes completely awry. "
Me wrote on August 25, 2008 11:30 am:
BC wrote on August 25, 2008 12:40 pm:
Hahaha Youre kidding right wrote on August 25, 2008 1:03 pm:
michelle wrote on August 25, 2008 1:18 pm:
Lydia wrote on August 25, 2008 1:25 pm:
What about the parents who don't use the safe haven and just kill their kids? Huh? I guess you taxpayers, as well as I am one too, would rather just see them dead instead of someone stepping in to help these kids. I say kids, because they are kids. Of course, I will always see my own children as kids until they are 100.
Not all children are raised with privelege and perhaps if they were dropped off, they would be allowed opportunties to become upstanding citizens, with education, instead of another statistic in our society. So, if my taxes are used to educate, care for, provide for, and nurture our children, then so be it. At least it's being put to good use! "
Amy wrote on August 25, 2008 1:58 pm:
Henny Penny wrote on August 25, 2008 4:35 pm:
helpedpass it wrote on August 27, 2008 5:31 am:
katua wrote on August 31, 2008 9:56 am:
scharlea wrote on October 8, 2008 11:00 am: