Now
Partly Cloudy
85.0°
High
92°
Low
71°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Chambers calls for special session on safe haven law

Comments 45 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Friday, Oct 10, 2008 - 07:01:59 pm CDT

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers would like Gov. Dave Heineman to call a special legislative session to bring an end to use of the safe haven law by parents of older children.

Chambers said the Legislature needs to stop this damage to children from being “deserted.” 

Then senators could come back in January and take the time to decide what to do with the bill, he said.

Story Photo
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha

Related Link(s):


10.09.08: Woman who left grandson: 'I pray for him all the time'
In the wake of the law

Nebraska’s safe-haven law lets caregivers leave a child of any age at a hospital without fear of prosecution for the abandonment. Since it went into effect on July 18, it has been used to abandon 17 children. Here’s a breakdown:

* Sept. 13: 11-year-old boy left at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha; 15-year-old boy left at Lincoln’s BryanLGH Medical Center West

* Sept. 20: 13-year-old girl left at Immanuel Medical Center

* Sept. 24: unrelated 15- and 11-year-old boys left at Immanuel Medical Center; nine siblings ranging in age from 1 to 17 left at Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services officials say two additional cases didn’t fall under the safe-haven law because one child was left at a police station and one child’s age wasn’t covered by the law.

* Sunday: 12-year-old boy left at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha; 12-year-old boy left at Lincoln’s BryanLGH Medical Center West.

* Tuesday: 14-year-old from Council Bluffs, Iowa, left at Creighton University Medical Center.

Source: Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

The session would have a narrow focus of putting an upper age limit on children who can be abandoned under the law, he said. 

“My primary concern is not with inconvenience to the state or any other agency or entity but, rather, with the traumatic (and potentially life scarring) experience of adolescents being abandoned,” he said in a letter sent Friday to state senators.

During a special session, he said, the issues brought into focus by the law could be thoroughly discussed without “hasty action” being taken. Those include the need for programs and “meaningful assistance to desperate families.”

Although he would continue to emphasize the need to tackle the underlying causes that lead women to abandon their babies, he said, he would not delay enactment of an appropriate amendment to the law.

Using the law for older children may not be what was intended, and may be undesirable, he said, but people are only doing what the law allows.

The fault should fall on those who constructed the law, not those who are using it, he said.  Chambers had opposed a safe haven bill for infants initially, but in the last session allowed senators to craft a bill without an age limit, saying he would not stand in the way.

Seventeen children, ages 1 to 17, from nine families have been abandoned under the state law that took effect in July. On Tuesday,  a 14-year-old girl from Council Bluffs, Iowa, was left at Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha. She was returned to her guardian Thursday.

Speaker Mike Flood said he was taking Chambers’ position “very seriously.”

Flood has been in contact with a number of senators, and they have a lot of ideas of what should be done with the safe haven law, he said. Some want a special session and some want to resolve the issue in the regular session.

If he is still the speaker in January, he said, a safe haven bill would be LB1 or LB2.

“That’s the most I can offer as the speaker,” he said.

Sen. Brad Ashford, chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee and Sen. Joel Johnson, chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, will oversee a hearing Nov. 13 on the safe haven law.

 The joint hearing will allow the public to comment on the use of LB157 by parents and guardians and on possible amendments to the statute.

By law, the governor can convene the Legislature outside of regular sessions for a specific purpose.

If two-thirds or more of senators request a special session, the governor would be required to call one.

A special session could cost the state $70,000 to $80,000, said Patrick O’Donnell, clerk of the Legislature. The legislative chamber is undergoing renovation and is closed but could be open the last week in October, he said. 

Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, who sponsored the safe haven bill, said Friday he was hoping agencies and organizations, like Boys Town and United Way, are starting to make headway in addressing the issues of families so they do not feel they have to abandon  children.

“I really hate to call a special session,” he said.

If the state could go 10 days to two weeks without a safe haven drop off, he said, he would feel some ground has been gained.

On the other hand, he said, if there are several more children abandoned from Nebraska and several more from other states, it might be necessary.

Gov. Dave Heineman’s office issued a statement Friday saying  Heineman appreciated Chamber’s support to limit the safe haven law.

“The governor remains hopeful that a special session will not be needed, however, should a special session be called, Senator Chambers’ support would be most helpful,” the statement said.

On Tuesday, in a letter to Nebraskans, he said the few safe haven dropoffs the state has seen demonstrate the need for a change in Nebraska’s law.

“In the coming legislative session, I will advocate for changes that put the focus back on protecting an infant in danger,” he said. 

In trying to discourage parents or guardians from using the  law for older children, Heineman said Nebraskans believe strongly in parental responsibility.

“As many parents know, however, raising a child can be challenging at times,” he said. “But I want every Nebraska parent to know that when it seems like there’s nowhere to turn, even in the most difficult and challenging situations, there are resources to help.”

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


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > 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  
Kevin wrote on October 10, 2008 11:59 am:
" The law needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. "
Linda S wrote on October 10, 2008 12:02 pm:
" Mr. Chambers makes some excellent points however, does he have the authoity to call a special session? I mean if it comes down to it, I'm confident that the legislature will make the call. "
Why wrote on October 10, 2008 12:02 pm:
" When the Legislature was in session discussing this bill, why didn't they look at what other states' have in place for safe haven laws and see how they are working there? It never hurts to do some legwork and homework on this stuff first, then maybe they wouldn't have these problems down the road. "
Ninajean Rohlfs wrote on October 10, 2008 12:19 pm:
" Believing in parental responsibility is a pie in the sky ideal. You can believe in it, but actually seeing it is a different thing. Heineman's stance that Nebraskans believe strongly in this ideal is in error, because it is Nebraska parents' actions for the most part that have led to older children (and sometimes people around them) being in need of a safe haven. Discussing morals is futile when the drastic need is at hand. Let's get real, guv. "
MarkyMark wrote on October 10, 2008 12:21 pm:
" This is the first time I have agreed with Mr. Chambers. Go Get Em. This needs to be fixed "
last hurrah wrote on October 10, 2008 12:23 pm:
" since Mr. Chambers is out of the legislature at the end of the year, looks like he's looking for a reason for one last session... Having so many teens left at hospitals is just emphasizing a real problem that needs to be addressed. Changing the safe haven law to just infants won't do anything to help teens & their families in need. "
good for Ernie... wrote on October 10, 2008 12:33 pm:
" I know that he is very controversial but Ernie has done some of the most productive and positive work out of ANY state senator in history...well doen Ernie! If nobody else will take the initiative, kudos for doing it yourself!!! "
Lincoln Taxpayer wrote on October 10, 2008 12:39 pm:
" If it is going to cost an extra 70,000 to 80,000 for this special session the cost of it should come out of the senators pockets since they messed it up in the first place. "
Shelly wrote on October 10, 2008 12:40 pm:
" I think it's perfectly fine the way it is. "
David wrote on October 10, 2008 12:55 pm:
" With 48 examples from other states already written how and why did Nebraska try and come up with something of their own? That is expensive, and irresponsible. Citizens should be asking their legislators, "how did this happen and what are you doing to ensure something like this will NEVER happen again?". "
arlo wrote on October 10, 2008 12:55 pm:
" I am astonished that this law was passed. There are lawyers working for DHHS, lawyers working for the Governor, lawyers working for and elected to the legislature and last but not least Attorney General Bruning and his entire legal staff. This doesn't count all the lawyers in county attorney offices and lawyers who regularly do work in juvenile cases across the State.

All these lawyers and none of them saw this coming? "
In shock wrote on October 10, 2008 12:57 pm:
" I have never before agreed with Ernie Chambers. I guess there's a first time for everything! "
JMK wrote on October 10, 2008 12:59 pm:
" Seems to me that good ole ernie forgot his run in the senate has ended. "
real scoop wrote on October 10, 2008 1:01 pm:
" Sen. Chambers IS THE REASON for the crisis in law we are now facing (though certainly not for the issue of desperation, which the crisis has brought to light). He insisted on the amendment opening this up to older children (and then still did not vote for the bill!). He should NOT be commended for seeking a special session to address a mess for which he is responsible. "
cit wrote on October 10, 2008 1:13 pm:
" Hold a special session when Ernie is OUT of office. He is the one who manipulated this law so he could make a point. He didn't want "any" safe haven law for "any" age child. I don't want to see any more showboating by Mr. Chambers especially when we are addressing serious issues facing families/children. "
70-80 thousand dollars wrote on October 10, 2008 1:13 pm:
" Make these people change that law, and NOT get paid to do so. They obviously weren't thinking when they passed it. "
Term Limits wrote on October 10, 2008 1:18 pm:
" This is what you get with forced term limits. You get inexperienced senators voting for bills they know nothing about.

Senators who have served more than 2 terms would probably have seen potential flaws with the law and have fixed it. If people wouldn't have been so concerned about getting rid of Ernie, this wouldn't have happened.

Ernie spoke out against this bill but everyone thought differently and look at this mess.

I agree with Ernie, we need a special session to fix this but it is up to Heinie if he will. After all, he did sign this lousy bill, he must like it. "
Dano wrote on October 10, 2008 1:23 pm:
" I have to disagree with changing the law. It is working perfectly (and I am not being sarcastic or facetious). It may need some additional diversionary programs that could be offered when a parent or guardian sees there is no other end. If you asked right now who I would call if I were at my wits ends and I had no one to rely on, I would have no clue. A crisis hotline or coping helpline or counseling program where they can seek some assistance should be added.

I would rather see them leave this as it is, and set up some diversionary and support programs, than let what happens behind closed doors, continue if they change it to an age maximum. Look we want people to take care of their own children. That is what family is supposed to be about. But let's face it, we all know someone or that some people, no matter how hard they try, may not be good parents, now or in the future. I don't think it is my place to judge if they can handle the responsiblilty, but what do they when they no longer think they can? What avenue do they have, especially if they feel like they have no other alternative? This is a far better alternative than what could happen.

I understand is traumatic to children for their parents to abandon them, but isn't it worse to leave them in a potentially far more combustible or dangerous situation. Several examples of the children that were left, show the depseration of the guardians. They are just as traumatized by their decision as their children, but they are doing something to try to help them all.

I would rather see those families get some help or have a way to save their child from their own family undoing. But the last thing I want to see is tragedy at the result of the state taking some embarassment on the national scene. I don't think it is embarassing. I think it is very brave to admit you failed at something as precious as parenthood, because no one usually wants more from themselves and for their children than their parents. I think it is brave of the state to offer to help it citizens. I think you all need to think of the worst situation you could be in as a family, and then think what you would do if you perceived you had no other outs. It might scare many people to think about what could happen and they might not be so quick to damn those who have sought this as the only ways to save their children. "
cat wrote on October 10, 2008 1:27 pm:
" Thats right, before the law was voted on the foot work and foresight of this happening should have been address. Now it will cost us $70-80,000, when we could better serve these people though outfits like Catholic Social serves, St. Vinces De Paul. They need to know who and what organizations can help. "
Jan wrote on October 10, 2008 1:28 pm:
" I would like to say one thing to those parents of teens. What happened to family values? Are we becoming a throw away society. If we don't like our children we just toss them out like yesterday's newspaper? We need to put in place orphanages. At least they would have a chance at a real family who would love them. This safe haven law should be restricted to infants. Anything older than that could be eleligible for other means such as a orphanage. "
Jeremy wrote on October 10, 2008 1:32 pm:
" In regards to Dano's comments, I can understand why you would want parents to have this option. But the state should not be burdened with people that, after many years, suddenly decide they don't want to be parents. This puts a strain on the system and on the tax payers. The safe haven law should exist, but there needs to be an age range. There are other ways for parents to deal with their children that doesn't involve abandoning them. "
concerned wrote on October 10, 2008 1:33 pm:
" To aal that commented thus far. I am sure the people presented the law did their homework, but I do not think people really thought it would go this route. I do think that Chambers has a right to call a special meeting just as any one else on the legislature does. I think it is important to get this law under hand. We had the trial run, now we see how it is and the tweaks can be made. This is reality people!! Many people are overwhelmed with thier children and feel they do not have anywhere else to turn. We need to get some help out to these people before the system is overwhelmed with so many children that could have been prevented! Time for that special meeting! It may cost $80,000, but when there have been 15+ kids already dropeed off, that is going to cost the state more than 80 grand to care for them!! "
dumbfounded wrote on October 10, 2008 1:43 pm:
" People never cease to leave me dumbfounded. You make the decision to have sex, you make a decision to use or not use protection, you make a decision to have or not have a child, and now you can make a decision to raise or not raise your children? At what point are people going to be held responsible for their actions. If you give people an out - they will take it. This is yet another band-aid fix for a much bigger issue. Those who have a true need would hopefully seek other options and HELP. There has to be a better way, but maybe more time should be spent at getting to the root of the problem. "
NO ERNIE wrote on October 10, 2008 1:47 pm:
" These "older" kids need to be addressed. This law shows there is a need NOW. The young children are NOT the ones being dropped off as thought when the bill passes. "
resources wrote on October 10, 2008 1:51 pm:
" Don't you think we (parents) have exhausted all known resources. A TV station listed family and friends as a resource. Dah. Whatever viable resources everyone claims to be available, I missed. I understand the dilemma. "
CS wrote on October 10, 2008 2:21 pm:
" He has always been against safe haven laws-just because he brought up the fact that the bill was ageist by only applying to newborns doesn't in any way obligate him to sign it. He said his piece and then voted how he wanted, just like every other member of the Unicameral could have. The extra scrutiny SHOULD have resulted in either redefining the word 'child', or throwing the bill out. But NE was all hot to trot so they wouldn't been seen as a laughingstock for not having one, and they passed another even more laughable bill in its place. Chambers had nothing to do with the ignorant, sheep following mentality of the other senators in the Unicameral. They only have themselves to blame. "
Kat wrote on October 10, 2008 2:24 pm:
" Leave the law as it is. If a guardian wants to give up rights to a child then they need a legal, safe way to do it no matter what the age. These children, volutarily or involuntarily, will end up in state care no matter if this law is used or not. Don't waste the tax payers money to change a law that is working. "
Conrad wrote on October 10, 2008 2:34 pm:
" This is not an urgent need. The economy has greater effects on a broader number of children. Chambers likes to hear himself and forgets many others don't want to listen to his silliness. The law needs a longere test period, it has uncovered many issues that were not addressed including why HHS isn't meeting its mission. Lets get a few more months data and learn from the present law rather than pay extra for another session. "
copy cat wrote on October 10, 2008 3:05 pm:
" Why do we have to copy other state's laws? Can't we make our own? If the parents are dropping the kids of, its probably better off for the kids. People seem to blame the parents and think they should be stuck with the kids. People need to stop and think about the kids, and not blame the parents. "
Seen it coming.... wrote on October 10, 2008 3:19 pm:
" Arlo some of the state senators are attorneys... they knew it was coming and they should have set it to a certain age limit in the first place. Our state is the only state that includes adolescents in the safe haven law (which is probably why the child from Iowa was brought to NE). Yes, they should have seen it coming, but it does need to be changed. The main purpose of this law should be just for infants to age 6. People are already abusing the law as it stands and yet none of the children left at hospitals have been infants (or there might have been one). People do need to seek other resources before dropping their child off and not just using the law as an out of parenthood. Oh, and Lincoln Taxpayer our State Senators only make $12,000 per year and most of them are either retired or have other jobs. That is way below minimum wage equalling around 2 bucks per hour for 365 days out of the entire year. "
whatever wrote on October 10, 2008 3:25 pm:
" The ONLY Senator with the GUTS to call the governor out on this. The ONLY Senator with the GUTS to say what needs to be said. And the ONLY Senator with the wisdom to see that this is addressed soon. And as usual when the going is tough or there is a hint of controvery our Brave leader, the WEST POINT graduate we all Gov. Heineman is NOWHERE to be seen. "
Kids these days wrote on October 10, 2008 3:44 pm:
" Where's the discussion about the teens behaviors? The way some kids are these days, it might do them some good to know that if they don't clean up their act there will be serious consequences. I'm not saying all teens are bad, but some need a real wake-up call. Family values my eye. Sometimes the best thing you can do for a kid is to put him/her in the hands of professionals. This could most certainly be a lack of necessary programs for both the parents and the kids, but that won't change anytime soon if public opinion is any indication. Seems everyone wants to cut taxes and cut programs. In fact, if we had more programs for at risk kids at a younger age, we might be able to prevent this from even being an issue. "
sa wrote on October 10, 2008 4:29 pm:
" do not call a session if he is involved. Mr. Gridlock. His stupidity is part of the reason it wasn't limited to infants anyway. "
re dumbfounded wrote on October 10, 2008 4:29 pm:
" Some of the people who have brought teens to a safe haven spot were NOT the parents, but guardians. The parents had already sought help from family or the family saw the problem and thought they could help. In these cases there has been at least one grandmother and one aunt seeking additional help for someone in their care. Don't assume, like the Dept of Health and Human Services has assumed, that people are not seeking out help before resorting to the safe haven law. Then, in the case of the family of 7 children, they faced the foster system because the judge did not think the family was ready to cope with the children. Is this the same family that Todd Landry and the Governor keep telling parents to turn to? What makes these men think that one family situation will be any better than the original family situation? It is just cheaper for the state if that is what happens. The financial bottom line is more important to the governmental leaders. "
Comm UnSense wrote on October 10, 2008 4:41 pm:
" If I recall correctly, the bill was originally submitted with the word 'infant' included. And, again going by my failing memory, I believe it was Mr. Chambers that wouldn't vote for it unless they changed the word to 'child', thus causing this whole mess in the first place. "
Larry wrote on October 10, 2008 4:43 pm:
" Ernie Chambers doing something I agree with.... way to go. This is actually something relevant from him that needs to be fix. "
Well... wrote on October 10, 2008 4:54 pm:
" last hurrah..let it be known that Sen. Chambers was against the Safe Haven law as it was written before it was enacted into law. He at that time tried to reiterate the problems that would arise from the wording. However, since every Senator feared an Ernie filibuster they just rushed the bill through as it read. Now, for once, I'm sure they wished they'd let Ernie state all his objections. It may have made a huge difference. Nebraska sorely needs someone of the caliber of Sen. Chambers. He, although it is not seen as such, stimulates conversation and further exploration of potential edicts. For a state that has a unicameral with one sided and biased thought processes he has elicited thought provoking arguments. Many stupider laws like this will inevitably be enacted because no one is there to champion for another side. Nebraska, in the end, is going to miss Sen. Chambers. Mark my words.. "
Juan wrote on October 10, 2008 5:15 pm:
" What kind of nihilistic world would it be if we could just drop off our children? What's next? Don't people ask themselves these kind of questions? Children have value - people have value! Where are our values? "
whatever wrote on October 10, 2008 7:36 pm:
" Let's clear something up. Here's the link to an article the JS published a while back. It's clear Sen. Chambers was NOT the senator that proposed the "compromise" that allowed children of any age to be dropped off. It is clear from the article that many Senators had no problem. Some of you need to get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers.


http://journalstar.com/articles/2008/10/04/news/local/doc48e7fb1ea1a20608478607.txt "
wow wrote on October 10, 2008 7:49 pm:
" state of nebraska does not know what is the best interest for children is so why should the senators change the safe haven law to make it for the best interest of children. The senators were warned and told that this exact thing of 17 year olds would be used in the safe have law. Senators feel leaving children with custodial parents that are druggies and leave the other parent with no control of their children in which non-custodial parent is not a druggy. this is also the best interest of the children. Go nebraska keep making the laws that the senators think is best interest of children. Look at the detention centers and see how their laws of best interest of children has made out. I am very proud of senator Flood I hope he sleeps well at night. "
Ernie is right...finally wrote on October 10, 2008 8:07 pm:
" Mr. Chambers is finally getting something right...Good Job King of the Sweat pants "
funny wrote on October 10, 2008 9:07 pm:
" It is funny Ernie would want this since he was the most out spoken for NO age limits. Citing it would be to difficult and put to much responsibility on workers to judge a child's age when faced with a safe haven child. "
slow down wrote on October 10, 2008 9:20 pm:
" i agree it is too soon to tell! Obviously when a bill like this passes into law you will have a large influx of children from people taking advantage of it. In due time the dust will settle and i think we will see that the age trend will decline but will time to time see a "older" child dropped off. In my opinion if? a change is needed immediately it would be to stop the reporting of a child being left the fact that it is making headline news will prevent a new parent/s who need this option for the child for which the law is to target from choosing it "
I see that wrote on October 10, 2008 11:43 pm:
" the same mindless, ignorant citizens of Nebraska who voted for term limits because a black man could beat them with their own laws, are now blaming that same black man for this bill even though he fought it until it was clear that he had no way to stop it.

You ignorant citizens should also be just about worn out from patting yourself on the back for passing term limits. But what you really did (after being duped by a group of New Yorkers) was limit who you could vote for in your own districts, just so you can stop one person from trying to avert your poor legislation. You are fools! You deserve crappy laws like this and all that will follow. Now go pray to the baby Jesus and vote team 'R'. "
bad children bad parents wrote on October 11, 2008 9:44 pm:
" I think parents should continue to cough up their children until the the number of children needing services is known and the number of parents at their wits end is known. Some of these children are dangerous to the parents and some of the parents are dangerous to the children. I want to keep this option open so that we can be proactive and step in and create treatment for parents and children. "

Ads by Yahoo!