Now
Fair
22°
High
32°
Low
16°

Even teens could find 'haven'

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By JEAN ORTIZ / The Associated Press

Monday, Aug 25, 2008 - 12:54:30 am CDT

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.’’


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
taxpaer wrote on August 25, 2008 9:46 am:
" Nebraskans, get ready to see a large tax bill come your way thanks to this genius bill getting passed!
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:
" Wow! This law really is ridiculous! I actually agree with Sen. Chambers (I cant believe i said that). If you are responsible enough to have sexual intercourse, you are responsible enough to handle the consequences. Especially if you decide to go ahead and have the child, dont turn your back on them after you give birth. That shows just how much of an idiot you are. If you can't take care of the child, maybe you should use protection! There are too many people having way too many chilrem and abusing the system, and i am sick of paying for the losers! "

BC wrote on August 25, 2008 12:40 pm:
" All children deserve protection. Let's concentrate on the details now and show that we care about Nebraska children. "

Hahaha Youre kidding right wrote on August 25, 2008 1:03 pm:
" Oh my gosh, those were some very funny comments made. to think that somebody, even the worst parent in the world, would use this law for a baby sitter! whooheee, that's just funny there!! we're the last state to get a safe haven law...and I am thrilled as a taxpayer that I won't have to read about newborn baby girl or boy being found in a trash can! ESPECIALLY since we have outlawed abortion in Lincoln. Honestly, how many times will these safe haven's truly be used? And another thought to consider, would it cost more or less than tying up courts in abuse cases. Boy, we're sure pro-life in Nebraska, but not pro-child! Check your morals at the state line! "

michelle wrote on August 25, 2008 1:18 pm:
" Dont you people get it? Somebody who leaves a baby in a trash can isnt a responsible person. They dont know what to do. Maybe they hid this from their parents and are scared to tell. So instead they can drop this baby off at a safe haven. Its not stupid. Everything isnt about being a taxpayer. For goodness sakes at least try to be a decent human being. This isnt ME ME ME ME all the time. We are trying to save the life of children. Did you hear me? CHILDREN. Grow up and try to get some sort of decency in your life. I dont think anyone plans on dropping off their kid going thru puberty. And seriously, do you think you are really paying that much in taxes for this Safe Haven program? You are paying more to support criminals and people who live off of welfare for life. Have a heart and think that if this can save the life on one baby, or help the mother know she can drop off her newborn without fear for its safety and she can then get the help she really needs. "

Lydia wrote on August 25, 2008 1:25 pm:
" Ok, let's think about it this way:

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:
" BC: I don't think this is about ALL children...it's about the older ones. 19 year olds...and even 16 or 17 year olds...can work and support themselves. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for someone who can enter the workforce. If their parents can't take care of them, they're probably just too lazy to learn better parenting skills, or they need to be more careful with money. Sure, if the kid is 5, 6 or even 10 or 12, I guess this is okay, but 19??? Come on. I started paying for all my own stuff when I got my first job at 16. Now 16 year olds who are sick of their parents and want to live on their own can now have it for free! I know it's not the child's decision, but the "child" can probably make their parents angry enough that their parents would WANT to give them away. Stupid!!! "

Henny Penny wrote on August 25, 2008 4:35 pm:
" Don't panic, I doubt any parent will use this for their teenage children. And I don't think kids can just show up either. "

helpedpass it wrote on August 27, 2008 5:31 am:
" Okay, i helped pass this law and let me clear up one thing. WE DID NOT WANT IT SO BROAD! WE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE AT THE TIME. Since our noncaring friend Mr. Chambrs blocked passage of a narrower version for the last 7 years, we had to write it this way to get it passed and plan to amend it later. Yes, we saw potential problems. But, baby steps were needed to get it on the books first. Next session plans to amend it are underway. And taxpayer... too many flaws in your theory. Kids cannot show up, the " abandoned" child goes to a family waiting to adopt, does not stay in hospital. How much in taxpayer money is it worth to you to save the life of a child? "

katua wrote on August 31, 2008 9:56 am:
" Although I would NEVER use this law, I'm glad it is in place because it is unfortunate that we hear stories of children being abandoned in thier homes and babies found in dumpsters. "

scharlea wrote on October 8, 2008 11:00 am:
" i'm one of the teenagers who have been dropped off by parents over and over again. i am one of the children who's parents turned their back on them when times got rough. well guess what? when times get rough that's when we need you most. that's when you need to step up and be a parent and take the responsibility that you took on having sex! if you didn't want me as a child you shouldn't have had sex. i will never forgive my parents for the what they've done. i have to go to counseling once a week because i can't live with the fact that my parents can just drop me off and think that the parenting stops there. i can't live with the fact that my younger sister does worse than me and yet they keep her there just because they wanted to get rid of me. i was a straight A student, did sports, tried to make my parents as happy as possible and yet I get thrown out when i didn't even technically DO anything wrong. It's not right. It is morally wrong. I think we should keep the safe haven law in nebraska but put age requirements on it. FOR INFANTS it can be a life saver, but for teenagers and kids who know what's going on. it hurts them more than anything in the world. you can't just turn your back. you are responsible for your own flesh and blood. as soon as you have that kid, that kid is your responsibility and the fact that the law states, "no questions asked" is ridiculous! if you throw your child in the dumpster you will be held for murder, but when you walk away with no questions asked on why your not taking responsibility for the way you've raised your children, or why your dropping this child off is the most dumbest irresponsible stupidest thing that the state has ever done. "