Teen from Michigan left at Nebraska 'safe haven'
By JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star
A 13-year-old boy driven 724 miles to Creighton University Medical Center from the Detroit area by his mother became the 10th youth whose family took advantage of the Nebraska safe haven law.
He is the second child dropped off from outside Nebraska.
Todd Landry, director of the Division of Children and Family Services for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the boy, who was dropped off at 1:30 a.m. Monday, was at the hospital a couple of hours before being transferred to emergency residential shelter.
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.
* Oct. 5: 12-year-old boy left at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha; 12-year-old boy left at Lincoln’s BryanLGH Medical Center West.
* Oct. 7: 14-year-old from Council Bluffs, Iowa, left at Creighton University Medical Center.
* Monday: 13-year-old from Michigan, left at Creighton University Medical Center.
Source: Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
He was not in danger of immediate harm, Landry said. And he had no obvious medical issues.
Landry said the department is working with Michigan officials and the Douglas County Attorney's office to resolve the situation quickly.
“While we empathize with many of the families struggling with parenting issues, this is not the proper way to deal with them,” Landry said.
The boy was the 18th child left at a hospital under the law since Sept. 13. LB157 went into effect on July 18. It was intended to be a life-saving alternative to abandoning a young baby.

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.
me wrote on October 13, 2008 10:37 am:
nice wrote on October 13, 2008 10:43 am:
Welcome to Nebraska hosted by Dave wrote on October 13, 2008 10:49 am:
tired wrote on October 13, 2008 11:00 am:
stoopid wrote on October 13, 2008 11:01 am:
Once Again wrote on October 13, 2008 11:01 am:
Big surprise... wrote on October 13, 2008 11:03 am:
WOW wrote on October 13, 2008 11:11 am:
RMM wrote on October 13, 2008 11:14 am:
HPG wrote on October 13, 2008 11:17 am:
Berten Earnest wrote on October 13, 2008 11:21 am:
defibrillatethis wrote on October 13, 2008 11:27 am:
Bill Lumbergh wrote on October 13, 2008 11:33 am:
JJ wrote on October 13, 2008 11:42 am:
MAD MOM wrote on October 13, 2008 11:49 am:
great program wrote on October 13, 2008 11:51 am:
roger wrote on October 13, 2008 12:28 pm:
ASSISTANCE INFO wrote on October 13, 2008 12:45 pm:
Jan wrote on October 13, 2008 12:47 pm:
Matt wrote on October 13, 2008 12:47 pm:
Yet, if we had elected a real governor in 2006 we might not have been in this mess... "
Only Babies wrote on October 13, 2008 12:47 pm:
Hmmm wrote on October 13, 2008 12:48 pm:
Ctrueee wrote on October 13, 2008 12:51 pm:
MattS wrote on October 13, 2008 12:56 pm:
Hold on a minute wrote on October 13, 2008 12:56 pm:
People aren't saying they hate children or that their lives are not valuable. On the contrary, we're saying, "Parents . . . your kids are extremely important and you need to take care of them." "
JB wrote on October 13, 2008 1:01 pm:
To Great program wrote on October 13, 2008 1:14 pm:
There's another side to this. "
Greg wrote on October 13, 2008 2:07 pm:
Xiphos wrote on October 13, 2008 2:11 pm:
Ignignokt wrote on October 13, 2008 2:20 pm:
Reader wrote on October 13, 2008 2:25 pm:
The system is not a perfect one, but if the children have a better chance at life, why not give it to them? 90% of these kids we are more than likely already paying for (i.e. welfare, WIC, various programs) so why not place them with more suitable parents or in a safer place? I would much rather see this, than pay for some worthless mother to neglect her children and see them wind up dead.
I don't think an age limit is appropriate for the safe haven law. Especially one that limits to up to one month old. Many problems can arise at various times in life. Homelessness, joblessness, sickness, things of this nature can happen especially with our everdrowning economy. We need to take care of our children, nobody else will. "
grown up wrote on October 13, 2008 3:12 pm:
Loving life wrote on October 13, 2008 3:36 pm:
Theres a better way wrote on October 13, 2008 3:49 pm:
worried in kansas wrote on October 13, 2008 3:57 pm:
Social Worker wrote on October 13, 2008 4:34 pm:
Nebraska does need to change the language of this law, but they also need to create a system to handle these children who would otherwise fall through the cracks. It will involve more money in the prevention side of things, which Nebraska has historically shown they are very much against. They would rather spend millions more after the problem has gotten too big to ignore. What I mean by that: Prisons and state run mental health facilities. How many people in there could have been spared that fate if they had been given the access to the services they needed when they were younger? How much money would Nebraska save in the long run if they had more prevention programs? MILLIONS, possibly BILLIONS. How many children would be subjected to this cruel abandonment that they don't understand? NONE.
This law was intended for infants, new born infants who would have no recollection or emotional damage done by this act. Another protection needs to be put into place for these under-served teenagers and children. "
California wrote on October 13, 2008 4:49 pm:
Davidtoo wrote on October 13, 2008 5:16 pm:
FYI, these other laws have not had NEARLY this amount of confusion/concern/embarassment associated with them. "
Mom wrote on October 13, 2008 5:32 pm:
Regina wrote on October 13, 2008 5:54 pm:
Holy Moly wrote on October 13, 2008 6:24 pm:
matt wrote on October 13, 2008 7:11 pm:
Kids First wrote on October 13, 2008 9:23 pm:
Orphan Train Redux wrote on October 13, 2008 10:18 pm:
to Mad Mom wrote on October 14, 2008 5:42 am:
dont blame kids wrote on October 14, 2008 6:40 am:
repeal the law wrote on October 14, 2008 9:26 am:
no special session wrote on October 14, 2008 12:02 pm:
mom of two and former state worker wrote on October 14, 2008 1:03 pm:
For all of the Anti-Safe Haven people posting comments- hug your parent(s)… they actually loved you- aren’t you glad? "
Age is just a number wrote on October 14, 2008 2:35 pm:
Jeff wrote on October 14, 2008 3:14 pm:
Harley wrote on October 14, 2008 5:25 pm:
MN Resident wrote on October 14, 2008 5:56 pm:
Omaha Resident wrote on October 15, 2008 2:40 pm: