Now
Fair
51°
High
51°
Low
29°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Nebraska
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Teen left at Omaha hospital under safe haven law

Comments 38 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY ZACH PLUHACEK / Lincoln Journal Star

Saturday, Sep 20, 2008 - 09:01:29 pm CDT

For the third time in about a week, an older child was left at a hospital under Nebraska’s safe haven law.

A 13-year-old girl was dropped off at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha on Saturday and is now in state custody, according to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

A spokesperson for Immanuel said the hospital had a “safe haven” situation but declined to comment further.

Related Link(s):


9.15.08: 2 children abandoned under safe haven law
In an emergency

The state Department of Health and Human Services urges Nebraskans to try these numbers for help with older children:

* 211 - The Nebraska human services information line.

* 1-800-448-3000 - The Boys Town National Hotline.

Todd Landry, director of the HHS division for Children and Family Services, said there was no indication of danger or harm to the girl when she was left.

“In that respect,” he said, “I would say that there is a similarity between this case and the ones from last week.”

On Sept. 13, an 11-year-old boy was left at Immanuel and a 15-year-old boy was left at BryanLGH Medical Center West in Lincoln.

As of mid-week, Landry said, the 11-year-old remained at the Omaha hospital and the 15-year-old was staying at a shelter in Lincoln.

The safe haven law went into effect in July. Sponsored by Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, the law allows anyone to leave a child at any state-licensed hospital without fear of prosecution. The law was intended to protect infants, Stuthman has said.

In a compromise while terms of the law were being debated, the measure was expanded to include the word “child’’ but didn’t define the word.

Landry said the three recent situations are clearly not what the Legislature intended. The intent, he said, was for “safe havens” to act as safety mechanisms for children in danger of being harmed.

“This is not the intent of the Legislature,” he said. “This is not the intent of the law.”

Stuthman said a week ago that he intended to watch closely what happens with the law. After hearing of the third incident Saturday, he said he is more adamant that something will need to be done.

“It is very disturbing to me that we have had three … in a week,” Stuthman said Saturday. “It really concerns me.

“We need to take a serious look at why are these children being dropped off,” he said. “Maybe there is a need for children to get a better place.

“I just hope we don’t have this as a weekly occurrence.”

Landry encouraged parents to look for other available resources in dealing with their children. His office has been able to manage the three recent cases, he said, but their effects on the children involved is severe.

“If, in fact, they (parents) believe it is an issue of a dire emergency, call 911,” he said. “Call the police. The police are well adept and skilled at being able to de-escalate situations.”

Reach Zach Pluhacek at 473-7306 or zpluhacek@journalstar.com.


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

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
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)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Robert wrote on September 20, 2008 6:54 pm:
" I dont understand wht this story is news worthy. I think the law is doing a great job protecting children who may be a risk otherwise. These are good things for the children and families "

 concerned wrote on September 20, 2008 6:54 pm:
" Do you see a problem with the wording on this bill? Maybe we should re-think the age range, people are now even using this as a threat to their kids, that is not right. See how conservative Nebraska can even screw this up, something to help endangered infants is now going to be so abused and cause our Protections and Safety Department more issues than we already have, smart, proud of our state! "

 One-House Clown Show wrote on September 20, 2008 7:31 pm:
" ROFL, our poorly-thought-out safe haven law is making us into an example of why the single-house legislature needs scrapped and replaced with a two-house model. It's just to easy to ramrod this sort of legislation through without reasonable amendment. No conference committee, no fine-tuning, just rush rush rush it through to stop the phones from ringing and the e-mail boxes from filling up. "

 Why is this news wrote on September 20, 2008 8:02 pm:
" Isn't the law supposed to protect minors? Or is it just for cute little babies? Why is this news? Are we trying to cause some outrage here? At what age to minors become less deserving of proctection and support? "

 Numbers wrote on September 20, 2008 8:35 pm:
" SO, since law goes into effect, 3 for 3 in exploitation of a law. And the biggest loser on those odds? The kids... Hey, don't feel like dealing with your kids? Just drop em off at a hospital, I promise no consequences. "

 Good thing wrote on September 20, 2008 9:02 pm:
" It's a good thing this law does apply to all children. Where would these kids be and what on earth would be happening to them if the law didn't exist? We can be as mad as we want at the parents/custodians, but that doesn't help these kids out any. "

 Dumbfounded wrote on September 20, 2008 10:00 pm:
" This just confuses me. Why or how could someone dump their child off? Nobody ever said being a parent is easy and you should try to enjoy it. Not bail on your child when they misbehave. The government is just making it too easy to pass the buck. Unbelievable!! I think the law should be rewritten and be for the moms who are too young and know they could not give a good life to their child. Not for the moms to dump their problem children off for someone else to care for them. They should be ashamed of themselves. I know I don't know the whole story but I do have 4 children and yes they drive me crazy but I still kiss them at bedtime and tell them how much I love them. "

 wow wrote on September 20, 2008 10:04 pm:
" unbeleivable. obviously the law was not intended for this. these parents are just using it as an easy-out to parenting. they should've gave them up at birth to a good home, but now look what they have behavior-wise because they weren't wanted in the first place. so sad for the kids...some people are so selfish. "

 You werent there wrote on September 20, 2008 10:30 pm:
" None of you know the WHOLE situation. I don't like the wording of this law either, but, we could be reading worse stories, about how one of these kids killed someone in their family. There is more than the guardians just giving up on the kid. "

 Lincolnite wrote on September 20, 2008 11:04 pm:
" LEAVE THE LAW AS IS. If the legal guardians (or "parents") can honestly have it within themselves to drop off their minor children with professionals ... then the children are better off. So if the law is re-written to only include children to age 3 - what happens to the rest of the children? Ignored? Abused? I think that would be far worse for society. Yes this is all sad, but again, if they CHOOSE to drop off their children it is likely not safe for them to go back home.

Save the children. Please. "

 Dee wrote on September 20, 2008 11:06 pm:
" OMG has no one been listening? There is NO other places. The choices are very few unless your kid breaks the law in a major way. There is no insurance coverage, there is no reasonable sliding scale for the level of care these kids need, there is no place, only wait listing. "

 CS wrote on September 20, 2008 11:39 pm:
" You say it was 'obviously not intended for this'. Since many in the legislature are LAWYERS I have to believe that it WAS intended for this-its not like we got to vote on it or anything. It is rather telling that our voters by proxy assumed that it wouldn't be interpreted in that way, and now see then need for careful reading and are bearing the fruit of unintended effects. It doesn't say a lot for them that Nebraskan's are showing them that we don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. "

 just wait wrote on September 20, 2008 11:43 pm:
" i use to work with these kids. its only going to get worse. dont be surprised if you see three a week from here on.

people, please stop thinking these teens are in harms way. these are teens that are law breakers and their parents simply gave up on them. these teens arent being beaten at home. "

 Dave wrote on September 20, 2008 11:52 pm:
" I would say the law dosen't go far enough. Are children allowed to place themselves under the safe haven law? I grew up with a mentally ill mother. This did not become apparent to me until I was an adolescent. I had to relinquish myself to custody of the state before anyone would take action. Humm I wonder what might have happened to me if I had stayed in my home. Now I get to pay taxes like everyone else and pay for other kids to be protected under the safe haven law. Infants are not the only ones who need protection under the laws of our state. The state says keep the kids with thier parents. So a meth mom does 6 weeks of court mandated drug treatment and gets her kids back. Meth is a horrible addiction and hard to break. When and most likely mom goes back on the crank do we deny those children the needs of a functioning parent or let them fall through the cracks "

 Just an adopted kid wrote on September 21, 2008 12:10 am:
" So are you all thinking that "kids" are no longer "kids" at 3 or 4???? Well, I will tell you, kids are 13, 16, 17, 18??? All I know is, "thank GOD my Mother knew at 6 months she didn't want me, and I went to a family who did, and at 50, and with my own children, between my husband and I, it is still a struggle with teenagers, but thank heavens we are "blessed" to be able at this point to "talk it through" between one of us and them. I am very very thankful that if someone feels that they or the child is "at risk" of violence, or anything else, they have a place to "feel safe". Thank you very much for the Safe Haven Law, who knows when you, or "heaven forbid" someone you know or love might need it. If it weren't for "sealed adoptions", I might not exist today! "

 SRO wrote on September 21, 2008 6:18 am:
" I guess I would rather see these kids in the care and custody of the State as opposed to running the streets unsupervised. If the parents/guardians are unwilling to care for and supervise these kids then someone needs to... This may prevent them from getting into further, more serious trouble. "

 Term Limits wrote on September 21, 2008 6:19 am:
" When you limit the time a senator can serve, this is the type of legislation you get. A law that hasn't been thoroughly thought out by novices. Now we'll get some knee jerk reaction law pushed by lobbyists to this and make it worse yet

This doesn't have anything to do with a "One horse legislature", it has to do with people who know nothing creating laws. Oh, wait...that is the current admin in Lincoln and Washington.

Let's get rid of term limits and get some experienced legislators back in there to write some good laws. "

 teacher wrote on September 21, 2008 7:37 am:
" Is it right to drop an older child off using the safe haven law? I don't know. I have children and it's not easy being a parent (and my kids are really good kids). I don't think people have any idea how some children act. There are kids out there that WON"T follow any rules and are impossible to handle. Parent(s) ask for help and get little. At times, there is no where to go. Having a safe haven law allows a parent to make a responsible decision rather than beating them or other forms of abuse. For the parent that feels there is no where else to turn this is another solution. I don't know how a parent or guardian can abandon a child, but I don't know what it is like to live with and try to raise a child who is out of control. "

 carrie wrote on September 21, 2008 7:50 am:
" I have a 14 year that definately challenges me on a daily basis, but would NEVER think of dropping him off at a hospital and leaving him there. I feel most sorry for the kids, because they will be scarred for life. Group homes and state custody are not a good option for any child, regardless of their circumstances. I think the parents simply gave up and the law allowed them to. "

 dale wrote on September 21, 2008 8:39 am:
" I'm sure the children that have been dropped off were behavior problems to begin with, might as well introduce them to the legal system now, due to the fact that they will eventually wind up in prison anyway. "

 Interesting wrote on September 21, 2008 10:27 am:
" The law is not the problem. Obviously, the problem is that parents don't know how to access services for their families when needed. The juvenile courts are full of these types of cases. But how did they get there? Clearly, some parents don't know the answer to that, and the community would be better served if the governor spent more time on outreach and less time on trying to change a law's wording. It doesn't matter if the law exists or not. The problem will still be there. "

 Jans Daughter wrote on September 21, 2008 10:59 am:
" One thing this law shows is that all the programs that are in place already are not being used well. As for using “Safe Haven” as a threat to get children to behave, the police and doctors have heard it for centuries. It hasn’t stopped people from using their services. "

 Rae wrote on September 21, 2008 11:20 am:
" It is always easier to sit back and judge. Maybe this law isnt perfect. What law is.. someone always feels wronged.

I dont want to see a knee jerk reaction on this. What I would like to see is concentrating on the KIDS........people are making this about adults .

How about approaching the new law as imperfect.........the best we can do for now to protect kids.......gather some data over the next year (ages involved,birth parent vs guardian, previous law involvement for teens, previous behavior tx , geographs, demographics etc)..........and then sit down and address the issues facing our children/families in relationship to this law. Lets get data , look at the real issues and go from there. Knee jerk reactions solve nothing. "

 Stuthman is concerned wrote on September 21, 2008 11:20 am:
" So, Sen. Stuthman is concerned again. I am so sick of these moronic state senators that, quite frankly, have no business serving in the Legislature. Senator Stuthman, if this was the bill that you presented and you didn't intend for this to happen, then I suggest that you make sure YOUR bill isn't hijacked or modified in a way that you don't agree with. For god sakes man, they had a discussion on the floor about this very issue and the possibility that it could happen. You only make yourself and the Legislature look silly when you speak about issues that you should know and understand but clearly don't. By the way, did you know that most of the staff in the Legislature plays a game counting the amount of times Senator Stuthman says he is "concerned" while speaking on the floor. There is an over/under line used by the staff and this game has become all the rage. "

 nemo wrote on September 21, 2008 11:45 am:
" I agree we don't know the all of the facts. I have seen first hand a violent, well built, strong minor take on siblings, parents. You call the police they run, or they just run. Then the parent has no idea where they are for 2 weeks. Probably out stealing doing drugs, then they drag their sorry behinds home and go into one of those loooong depressions where you wonder if you'll find them dead in their room. Call human services? Get on a waiting list, call the police, put them in jail, or take them somewhere where they will get the meds/ help/ constructive environment they need. I've seen it but i've only lived it through family members. You beg, you plead, and there just is not that much help out there for these kids w'out handing them over as state wards. If you have not experienced this horror then, I suggest that maybe it's worse than most of you think. "

 sassy wrote on September 21, 2008 12:03 pm:
" I think this just shows that there is a need to get these families help. Most insurance companies don't pay for therapy, and if they do it's for very few sessions. If they even have insurance. What does HHS think would happen if they didn't use the safe haven bill to get the child help. Would there be another case for them to investigate of abuse or neglect. In dealing with HHS intake line alot in the last few years for my job, I can tell you I've been disappointed in the investigation more times then not.
I belileve too, that parents have to take more responsibility in the raising of their children, I don't think this law is to be used as an "easy way out", but if they have been trying to get family help with no avail, I can see this being a great benefit.
It makes my heart sick that this is their only option. Both for the parent or guardian, and the child. "

 Thomas wrote on September 21, 2008 12:45 pm:
" I know that there are some people that feel really bad for the kids (the older kids) that are being abandoned under the Safe Haven law. I truly feel horrible for these kids as well, but have taken a different approach to this issue as of late. Although no child deserves to be abandoned by their parents/guardians for any reason, maybe this truly is better for them. Any parent/guardian that could do this to a child is a complete monster and does not even deserve the right to be called a parent. I'm not talking about infants in this case, so calm down; just talking about the older kids that we've been reading about. If a parent/guardian can abandon their child like this, the child's home life was probably detrimental to them in the first place. At least they can be placed with a loving family who can teach values, self-respect and give the child the love that they were more than likely not receiving at home. 13-year-old was just too out of control and had behavioral issues? Come on, he's 13. None of my children were angels at that age! "

 Julie wrote on September 21, 2008 1:10 pm:
" Because minors are involved we will never know the circumstances of these families who are dropping off their children. While not the intention of the law, it could be providing families in desperate situations with a safe place to turn. Parents with children who are out of control are often reluctant to get law enforcement involved and in many cases the child has to get in serious trouble before families can get help. This could be an alternative for those families. What about the abused spouse who is in fear for the safety and lives of the children in the home? While I understand that their is a huge potential for abuse of this law, it could help many children if the state provides the proper follow up and provides the appropriate support for families who have felt that they had no other choice. The law should undergo some rewording to minimize the potential for abuse, but to change it to protect infants only and leave older children out would be a disservice to the children and their families who don't know where else to turn. "

 Nanc wrote on September 21, 2008 1:11 pm:
" "unbeleivable. obviously the law was not intended for this. these parents are just using it as an easy-out to parenting."
And abandoning a newborn is any different? The law was intended to protect children of all ages from being put in harms way by those who hadn't done the necessary steps to make sure their child would be safe after they gave it up. Who would give up a child, newborn or otherwise? Beats me, but this law will protect the child first. The parents will have their own reasons for abandonment, but they aren't really all that different if the child is 11 hours or 11 years. "

 Reality wrote on September 21, 2008 1:51 pm:
" Well I say if these parents have reached a point that they no longer want the children and could easily drop them off. Then these children are perfect for this law to protect. If their guardians have gotten to a point where they feel this is the only option or if they simply are so cold that they can just dump their children. The we need to get these children out of those homes and hopefully find them somplace safe for them to go. As an adult child of an alcoholic father and a teen mother who turned her back on me many times and left me fending for myself. This safe haven law would have been god sent. As a social worker I see far to many children stuck with parents that could really careless about them. So why should those children be stuck, just because they were born to these people. There are also families out there that truely feel they have tried everything with a tough teen and do not know where to go for help. I say why does it matter if this is how they get the help? "

 Jen wrote on September 21, 2008 2:40 pm:
" More often than not, these families have done all they can for their children and this is the absolute last resort. The system in general needs an overhaul. Do you have any idea what it takes to get a child placed for a higher level of care? We're talking years. Sometimes, it is a matter of life and death in these situations and the parents have to keep themselves, and other children in the household, safe. You have not walked a moment in these people's shoes, and you can not possibly understand to what extent they have gone through just to get to this point. Stop judging them. "

 Matt P. wrote on September 21, 2008 9:27 pm:
" I originally was very much against this bill, however after rethinking I've changed my position. Clearly, these are generally very high risk children. That is probably a result of the horrible parentage that they've received growing up. Even further, if these parents/guardians are willing to give up their children then the child is probably much much better off being a ward of the state. The guardians have failed and at the very least maybe the state can provide some structure. This idea may not be quit as ridiculous as I originally claimed it to be. I say let's wait and see how it is generally used, and maybe tweak the conditions it can be used at higher ages, but I say leave it in place. "

 Shame on the Legislature wrote on September 21, 2008 10:20 pm:
" Every legislator who voted for this bill owes our state an apology. Sloppy, shoddy work in lawmaking has become all too common for the State of Nebraska. "

 Roger wrote on September 22, 2008 1:22 am:
" Hope all the 50 liberals in Neb. are happy now. Yeah, of course the "teachers" are going to be happy with this law, they are as "flaming" liberal as it gets. Sorry, ya don't mesh with us REAL Nebraskans. This law needs to go away, and make people responsible for their own again. "

 Carol wrote on September 22, 2008 8:18 am:
" Everyone seems upset that these parents "gave up." Don't you think there are plenty of other parents out there who have given up but just let their child run right over them? Parents whose children are having children, who are skipping school, doing drugs, getting into trouble? Its naive to believe that just because someone retains custody that they will still be trying. You can't force someone to be a good parent by handing them a baby.

We may also have a bit of a carry over situation since it took so long for our law to be enacted. Maybe these children would have been dropped off at the hospital as an infant if that would have been an option. We may have a few years of teenager drop-offs simply because the parents didn't have the option ten years ago. Hopefully now more parents will be able to give up children they can't support as babies rather than wait until they are teens. "

 Kristine wrote on September 22, 2008 9:55 am:
" You can't take a teenager around, convinced that they're 'bad' and out of control, and ask people to fix them when their family dynamic plays has shaped their being. 98% of the time, (okay, maybe 97) the whole family needs fixing, the kid doesn't need to be labeled bad.
The most unfortunate thing of all is, there aren't 'loving families' willing to take in a labeled 'troubled teen'. There just aren't. "

 WHoa Roger wrote on September 22, 2008 2:54 pm:
" When you say "real Nebraskans" you are referring to those with IQs <70, right? "

 Kristine may be right wrote on September 22, 2008 3:04 pm:
" but the government can't intervene in a family and tell them how to fix themselves. We can lecture all we want about how parents should do a better job raising their children and being better role models, but at the end of the day, there is absolutely nothing the government can do about it.

On the other hand, the government can take a child out of this family situation, place the child in a correctly-functioning home and maybe that child's future family of his own will be functional. This process is simply sped up when families realize there are problems and resolve them in advance. "

Ads by Yahoo!