Now
Partly Cloudy
85.0°
High
92°
Low
71°

Senators meet to discuss safe haven law

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Sep 29, 2008 - 12:00:16 pm CDT

A working group of six state senators met Sunday night in Omaha to hash over potential changes to Nebraska’s new safe haven law.

Among topics discussed by Speaker Mike Flood,  and other mostly Omaha-area senators, were the age range of children included in the law, access to services for families in crisis, children’s mental health services and available resources for parents in the state.

“Everything was on the table,” Flood said.

Story Photo
Sen. Mike Flood

Related Media

The story so far: Safe haven law

Nebraska's safe haven law, which went into effect in July 2008, was broader than most and allowed a parent to leave an infant or child at a hospi...

Senators, along with state and private agencies that work with the welfare of children, have been concerned that LB157, passed earlier this year,  did not define an age range for dropping off children in designated safe havens and has led to 14 children being given over by parents and guardians.

None of them were infants, as intended in the original safe haven bill brought forward by Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center in 2007.

Flood said the senators need an orderly, thoughtful process rather than rushing into a special session to address the issue.

The safe haven law was passed to protect all at-risk children in the state, not for the convenience of their parents or guardians, he said, and not “simply to avoid his or her parental responsibilities.”

“We want to make sure we don’t short-circuit parents’ responsibility to exercise reasonable judgment,” he said.

It’s hard to argue, however,  that the nine children from one family handed over a week ago in Omaha aren’t in a better spot now by their father taking advantage of the safe haven law, Flood said.   

The group, that in addition to Flood included Sens. Brad Ashford, Rich Pahls and Tom White of Omaha, Tim Gay of Papillion and Stuthman, discussed potential amendments to LB157, including clarification of the ages of children to be included in safe haven immunity.

The group did not reach agreement on what the age should be, Flood said.

White said the bill, by using the word “child,” clearly intended the immunity to be for parents with children under 14.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines children as those under 14, he said.  A minor, more than 15 years old, is not included in the legal term of “children,” the dictionary says.

White wants to make sure that is clear in the law.

At the same time, he said, he would rather see any of the children now in custody getting help rather than having been harmed or killed.

“A dead child cannot be corrected,” he said.

The Legislature had no interest in providing for the convenience of parents, he said, but rather intended to prevent harm of children.

The working group will reconvene in the next couple of weeks, Flood said, and he expects the group to come up with amendments for the bill by the end of the year, if not sooner.

“Can this be modified? I think that it can,” Flood said.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


$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)
   
Dont Get It wrote on September 29, 2008 9:57 am:
" Why is it so shocking that people are dropping off teenagers since no age limit was included? It concerns me that state senators are quite so short-sighted as far as the outcome of the bills they pass. "

Jack wrote on September 29, 2008 10:05 am:
" This so called "safe haven" law terrible no matter how you write it. If you have sex resulting in pregnancy, deal with it. If you don't want the child, abort it or place it for adoption. Simple enough. Why taxpayers must pay for "10 minutes of lust" is beyond me. Sex has consequences, duh! "

Unbelievable wrote on September 29, 2008 10:28 am:
" Thats what you get with so much of the younger generation, don't think
2 jumps ahead of their nose, yet they want to make laws and regulate the
people. Well you see what you got. Couldn't even check to see what ALL
the rest of the states do before passing a law!!! So now the taxpayers
foot the bill to come back and straighten out the horse after its out of
the barn!!!! And to make it worse, Nebraskan's want to elect these young
unseasoned know-it-alls to the U.S. Govt. and Presidency. "

Joe wrote on September 29, 2008 10:34 am:
" http://lpd304.blogspot.com/

The police Chief talks about this today on his blog. "

Bill wrote on September 29, 2008 11:34 am:
" This is a blog that has information too.
http://lpd304.blogspot.com/ "

Karin wrote on September 29, 2008 12:25 pm:
" The law has not had sufficient time to be judged or altered. The recent non infant incidents might have only been a finding that HHS isn't doing the job it should. The rights of a child should not be harmed regardless of whether being a newborn or teenager. Sometimes family situations deteriorate and this protection is need for both children and the troubled parent. Fickle legislators aren't going to solve a problem if they deny the incidents are a call for help...not avoiding a blatant need. If systems are in place, as they should be, the drop offs should be moved into a process that is ready, willing, and able to deal with older children and the desperate guardian. "

To Jack...... wrote on September 29, 2008 12:26 pm:
" So far none of these children have been dropped off because of normal circumstances resulting from an unplanned pregnancy. These are extreme cases and should not be grouped in with the teenager who got caught up in the moment and thus produced an offspring. DUH!!!!! You should be able to rest better tonight knowing your tax dollar hasn't been used for that, yet....... "

gg wrote on September 29, 2008 12:28 pm:
" "That's what you get with so much of the younger generation, don't think 2 jumps ahead of their nose."

Are you kidding me? Aren't many of these lawmakers 40 and above? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't call that the younger generation.

I'm glad Nebraska finally decided to enact a safe haven law. Yes, they may have messed up the wording a little bit, but because of it, attention has been drawn to helping families who need help get help. I have faith that our elected leaders will make it right and will also look into making it easier for those with older children to get the help they need. "

Randy wrote on September 29, 2008 12:33 pm:
" I fully support this law no matter the age of the child, however they should fine people who leave kids with the state. Just like child support. "

enough wrote on September 29, 2008 12:44 pm:
" A few more months or even weeks, heck days of the Bush administration and all of us will be seeking a safe haven. "

Bev wrote on September 29, 2008 1:32 pm:
" The will lose credibility if it changes the law. This is a problem with term limits and having lawmakers who don't read before they vote. The definition is clear and the governor signed the law. We can't trust these folks if they flip flop all the time and act like chickens with their heads cut off "

michelle wrote on September 29, 2008 2:03 pm:
" People come on, how can you be so mean? Life happens, horrible things happen to families and they dont know wher to turn or how to deal with children, it becomes overwhelming, and instead of killing the kids then themselves they drop them off at a Safe Haven. Isnt that better? Yes, I do believe this should be mostly for children under the age of 5 but a person who is desperate and needs help and cannot find any other solution when most people do not qualify for basic help from the state. Its not always about "oh I am a taxpayer and now I have to pay for somebody else's mistake". Have a little bit of a heart, some sympathy for your fellow human being. Obviously some of you posters have never had kids or any hardships that come with being a parent. "

Outside the Box wrote on September 29, 2008 2:06 pm:
" It's pretty short-sighted that this "working group" meeting in Omaha didn't bother to include Sen. Chambers - the only person who opposed the law in it's current form.

Is "working group" an oxymoron if nothing is accomplished? "

Troubling wrote on September 29, 2008 3:48 pm:
" What really troubles me about this one is that Nebraska was the LAST state to pass Safe Haven legislation and even with the laws of 49 other states to use as a template, the Unicameral didn't manage to get it done right!! "

To term limits whiners wrote on September 29, 2008 7:29 pm:
" For all the people who say that term limits will take away lots of "experience" and "memory', please remember that the Nebraska legislature that passed this badly written bill still had lots of long time senators doing the bill writing and voting. Boy, all of that experience, and they still came up with a bill that makes the entire State of Nebraska look like idiots. "

Jack wrote on September 29, 2008 9:22 pm:
" Thank you, Senator White for "defining" child. Easy way for you to walk away with helping to pass this law without better educating yourself. Very slick of you! "

noDUH wrote on September 30, 2008 2:11 am:
" what makes you think this law is written for TEENAGERS that have unwanted babies? there are plenty of grown women that are in the same boat, and men as well. and i personally dont think its a bad thing to leave these kids if the alternative is abuse, or even death of the children, you are all agast when that happens, but you dont want them to drop off at safe house?? "

connie wrote on September 30, 2008 5:45 am:
" It shouldn't be modified until these parents can get help through different channels. All the stories I read indicated that these parents were denied help from DHHS and other agencies.
No, senators, you had it right the first time. "

Jen C wrote on September 30, 2008 9:45 am:
" The idea of imposing a fine or child support on those who utilize the safe haven law defeats the purpose of it. What's more important, shaking your finger and chastising someone for being "irresponsible" or making sure a child (no matter the age) is in a safe and healthy place? Priorities, people..... "

Matt wrote on September 30, 2008 12:19 pm:
" Perhaps it is time to move to a two house system. Unicameral system is too easy for bad laws to move through. "