Now
Fair
20°
High
32°
Low
18°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Speaker Flood: majority of senators would alter safe haven law

Comments 70 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Oct 20, 2008 - 07:30:50 pm CDT

Speaker Mike Flood and Gov. Dave Heineman said Monday a majority of state senators agree Nebraska’s safe haven law should be amended to apply only to infants up to 3 days old.

But no special session likely will be called to change the law.

Instead, lawmakers will wait until the regular session begins Jan. 7 and will address the issue in its first three weeks, Flood said.

Story Photo
Gov. Dave Heineman

Nebraska’s law, the only one in the nation to allow children as old as 18 to be abandoned without prosecution, went into effect July 18. Since then, 18 children ranging in age from 20 months to 17 years have been dropped off in hospitals in Omaha and Lincoln.

Two of the children abandoned in the past two weeks were from outside Nebraska.

Officials have said none of the children were in immediate danger of being harmed when abandoned. Instead, struggling parents chose the option out of frustration with the children or to get needed mental health treatment for them.

One Omaha father abandoned his nine children because he said he feared the family would become homeless after his wife died. 

Flood contacted almost every senator, he said, and 40 told him there would be good reasons to change the law to cover only infants up to 72 hours old.

By January, however, some of those senators may be gone. Fifteen are leaving office because of term limits. Another three are in close races in their districts.

In the five races in the Lincoln area, eight of 10 candidates said in a Journal Star candidate questionnaire they would amend the law to recognize the original intent of the bill for infants.

District 25 candidate Travis Wagner, who is running against Kathy Campbell, said he would want the law to ensure parents who had come to the decision to give up their children would be directed to resources and services to help them.

“I don’t know that everyone knows about the alternatives,” he said.

District 1 candidate Jerry Joy, running against Sen. Lavon Heidemann, said he would not change the law because older children are perhaps being saved by it.

“The law isn’t failing parents and children,” Joy said. “The current system is.”

Several candidates said although they believe the law should be for infants, its use for older children shows a need for awareness of resources to help struggling parents.

Flood said Monday a few state senators have not agreed to changing the law to include only children up to 3 days old. Some suggested 5 days, 30 days.

The proposed amendment would be simple, just as the current law is, specifying that an infant up to 3 days may be left with a hospital employee, and the parent would not be prosecuted for abandonment.

After that, any issues surrounding the abandonment would be handled by the state Department of Health and Human Services and the courts, Flood said.

Heineman said he is not calling a special session at this point, because the regular session is 75 days away and the election is two weeks off. Trying to find a time to conduct a special session would not be easy, he said.

A special session would cost the state $70,000 to $80,000.

Still, the governor did not close the door on meeting early to address the law.

If several more children are brought in from out of state, or if the number of in-state drop-offs increases, he said, “I won’t hesitate to make that call.”

In the meantime, HHS will work to raise awareness on resources available to families dealing with behavioral issues of older children.

“We are monitoring this day to day,” the governor said.

About half of the 18 children dropped off at Nebraska hospitals in Lincoln and Omaha have been former state wards.

Heineman has authorized HHS to spend up to $100,000 for increased promotion of the United Way 211 referral system for parents and guardians having problems with older children and youth.

In addition, $200,000 has been reserved, if needed, for additional call lines and staff for the referral system, he said.

Todd Landry, HHS director of children and family services, said a letter would be sent to adoptive parents and guardians of former state wards to make sure they know about services available to them.

Sen. Brad Ashford said bills will be introduced in the 2009 session addressing issues of services for older children that have been highlighted by the law.

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  
Lincolnite wrote on October 20, 2008 9:46 am:
" AND WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE REST OF THE CHILDREN? Leave them to be neglected or abused? Or abandoned? It is obvious we as a state still need to step up our efforts to communicate what child guardians can do if things are getting out of hand. "

 go higher wrote on October 20, 2008 9:49 am:
" I would at least go to the age of 5, and also restrict to Nebraska children. I of course do not see a problem with the law now, because as we have seen these children that were dropped off need help. How can we close the door to these poor children who are innocent and in need of help? But I guess if you are going to change the age, I would go to the age of at least 5 maybe 8. Three days is not long enough for a distressed parent to think about their choices. (They should have thought about it before having sex) but that is a WHOLE other issue. But we should not blame the child/baby. "

 so sad wrote on October 20, 2008 9:51 am:
" If we had better programs for older children that deal with mental illness and behavior problems this wouldn't be needed to change at all. This really shows that there are not enough programs for these kinds of kids. How about helping the problems instead of just making it even harder for kids to get the treatment they need? "

 RE-model wrote on October 20, 2008 9:55 am:
" Due to the statute that the unicam must hold sessions in the chambers, & the current renovation of the chambers of the legislature now in progress, they cant have a special session until Joe the plumber & crew is finished. Besides, with new senators coming in, & Chambers out, reason #2 for no special session. Lastly, this bill was on the floor, & committee for long enough... The concern should have been brought then... So those that complain about the law, stop being armchair monday morning concerned citizen & pay attention to what is happening as it happens. "

 service worker wrote on October 20, 2008 10:01 am:
" this is another "quick fix"...........some mothers are not even home from the hospital 3 days after delivery. What about the parent(s) who decide after a few weeks that they are unable to properly care for a child? The number of teens dropped off recently is a symptom of many and larger societal issues than just parents looking for an easy way out. NE is unprepared to offer individualized services when needed by families and children - the focus is on the cost to the state rather than cost to the child/family. Please do not make another "knee-jerk" decision - take the time to develop a plan that is rehabilitative rather than punitive. "

 Gardener wrote on October 20, 2008 10:04 am:
" What are we going to do to address the problems this has unearthed? What about these children and families? Are we going to go back to pretending these problems aren't there? "

 Amy wrote on October 20, 2008 10:08 am:
" Lincolnite: There are other options. What do you think parents in the other 49 states do with their older children/teens? Yes, the children need help, but the safe haven law was not intended for them. These parents can find help elsewhere that doesn't involve our (and your) tax dollars...just like it always has been! "

 NPlatte wrote on October 20, 2008 10:09 am:
" Shows the gov lacks good judgment. Is Dave out of touch with needs of HHS to make it functional? "

 H wrote on October 20, 2008 10:09 am:
" I think they should allow up to a year old. Thats plenty of time for the parent to realize they can't handle it. It sad that anyone could just give up a child. I have four myself and I would never do that. I guess if the parent is unsure it is better that someone else takes care of them. "

 savehavensupports wrote on October 20, 2008 10:13 am:
" those wondering what to do with older children, try parenting. "

 Becky wrote on October 20, 2008 10:15 am:
" 3 days old???? Some infants are still in the hospital at 3 days old. It's not the childs fault if the parents don't want them, or cant take care of them. "

 Jackie6913 wrote on October 20, 2008 10:17 am:
" I personaly feel that the age range should be- birth up to 6 months of age. I also can relate to the older children syndrom for the fact alot of parents feel that if they are unable to care for their children regardless of age or their personal battles sometimes family are not the best choice to raise their children but also they don't want The State to charge them with anything!!!! So they took advantage of the open age Safe Haven Law to protect their children. "

 Nic F wrote on October 20, 2008 10:22 am:
" Since when did it become the government's job to help families deal with problem children? How about, instead of complaining all the time about what the government does and doesn't do, the citizens step up and take responsibility and start their own organization to help with these types of problems. Why don't we call on the churches to step up and help out with these types of things? Quit looking to the government for help people...you'll just be disappointed! "

 mitchy_v wrote on October 20, 2008 10:23 am:
" 3 days to decide isn't enough? What about the previous 9 months the parents had. You should have decided what to do before you get to the hospital. "

 What about the real problem wrote on October 20, 2008 10:28 am:
" The real problem is a lot of these kids have mental problems and they reach a point that their parents can't handle them anymore. There needs to be more mental health options in the state some of these parents think they are getting their kids help by dropping them off. That's where the problem is not the age and that is also a problem. But won't help this group of kids I'm talking about. "

 Dee wrote on October 20, 2008 10:29 am:
" wow, from one extreme to another. Why three days? Why not 2 years or three years. What do the other states that have this law stop at? how has that worked for them? What is the average age of kids given up or removed in other situations? Have we don't nothing but pull our heads from the sand and put it in another orifice. "

 Jack wrote on October 20, 2008 10:31 am:
" 3 days is more than adequate. If you do not want the child, have an abortion, or place it for adoption. Taxpayers are NOT responsible for someones 10 minutes of lust. "

 huh wrote on October 20, 2008 10:35 am:
" Are people really suggesting ABANDONING!!! children is the best option for those beyond newborn?!! Parenting is a full time RESPONSIBILITY! Who are we to grant people the right to ABANDON children after they decide it's too much for them! I agree, it's become obvious that resources need to be more readily available and promoted. What options were people exercising before this "door" opened for them? The behaviors and reasons for these ABANDONMENTS didn't occur over night and the solution to the issues won't happen overnight either. Start with the school counselor and psychologist-they're there for a reason! There are resources out there, take a moment and check them out! "

 Choice wrote on October 20, 2008 10:42 am:
" I agree, what happened to parenting? If you want to have kids, its YOUR
job to provide for them, NOT the public or more PROGRAMS. If you buy a
new car and it doesn't run right, do you go dump it onto your neighbor or
SOMEBODY else? The safe haven law in most states was meant for unwed mothers or mothers that couldn't cope at the birth. Not older children!
Good grief, I wouldn't even dump my dog off somewhere to somebody. It
would be my responsibility. Thats the problem with how kids are raised
today, if they don't like something just dump it and it follows them the
rest of their life. If the child has mental problems you search until
you find the help, ya don't dump them!! These younger generations want
their life hunkey doory. These kids are given and given until when the
time comes money runs out then they get hostile and demand what they want
or else make everybodies life misserable, then the parents are ready to
dump them on someone else. What they need is the good ole paddle like
is grew up with. And we wonder why we have all this greed in the world
today!!! "

 jo wrote on October 20, 2008 10:43 am:
" So lets see, now that they see there is a problem with the law, they are going to go extreme and change it to the point that it isn't going to be useful. They need to make it 6 month to a year, if they do 3 days old all that is going to help is the ones who know right from the beginning that they don't want the child, what happens to the ones that get home and find out they can't handle it. How many kids is it going to take to be beaten and neglected for the state to get this law right. WAKE UP LAW MAKERS!!! "

 tcan wrote on October 20, 2008 10:48 am:
" isn't there an option less extreme than 18 years or 3 days? 3 days after giving birth, parents are still in the honeymoon phase and haven't even begun to face the reality that they may not be able to care for their children. they haven't had enough sleepless nights to feel desperate or as though they could snap at any moment. why were there so many angry comments about the judicial ruling that parents have more rights to raise their children ("family and friends might do it better") but when a parent decides that he or she is not in a position to raise a child, there is equal disgust? "

 vote..... wrote on October 20, 2008 10:50 am:
" pro life. "

 Texan wrote on October 20, 2008 10:57 am:
" We have this law in Texas, but it calls for 30 days. 3 days is not very realistic as sometimes it teks a young mother a week or two to decide this is really what they want to do. "

 CS wrote on October 20, 2008 10:58 am:
" Amy, there aren't 'other options'. That's what the laws abysmal failure had helped to highlight. In other states there actually is an infrastructure to deal with the issues of older kid in family issues. In NE you have to pretty much commit a crime, and then you get to go into foster care, juvenile incarceration, or jail. Wow, what a lovely array of choices. "

 Yes 3 days wrote on October 20, 2008 11:00 am:
" The safe haven law was not intended to help those parents who have regrets a week, a month, or 10 years later. There are already systems in place for those circumstances.

It was intended to prevent the situations where infants were abadoned in dumpsters, bathrooms, etc. by mothers who couldn't deal with their pregnancy. Most of those births weren't being done in hospitals anyway. It seems to work in 49 other states, not sure why we can't have it here... "

 Lincolnite wrote on October 20, 2008 11:01 am:
" Amy - You and I (and several others) know about the programs available for help with older children/teens ... but the actions we've seen played out over the past few weeks still proves my point (from my first post) -- "It is obvious as a state [we] still need to step up our efforts to COMMUNICATE WHAT CHILD GUARDIANS CAN DO IF THINGS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND."

And, for the record, I'd rather have my tax dollars pay for these children and their safety than many of the other things our tax dollars pay for. To me this isn't even about money -- even if it is meant for only those "in immediate danger" I still don't feel we should turn our back on a child who is ten years old any more than we should turn our back on a newborn.

Children are our future. Protect them and teach them. They will notice and grow up with what they believe. I don't like parents dropping off older children any more than anyone else does; but if those kids are kept out of harms' way and have a meal and shelter, they are better off and we are better off as a society.

We need to provide for them. I absolutely agree we need to educate guardians of minors of all of the options available to them -- but if they are really at the point of giving up their child, we should be sure the child is safe, and then let the consulting and education begin, if needed.

But for heaven's sake; most folks who could honestly give up their child are at their wits' end -- they do not know what to do anymore. I don't believe for a second that any of these cases in Nebraska are "copout" cases ... these people need help. We should ENCOURAGE those who need help to ASK for help - don't threaten them with bad legislation. "

 Kristine wrote on October 20, 2008 11:10 am:
" Well, it seems obvious to ME that there, uh, ARE other options available past three days of age. You can still put a child up for adoption. You don't need the 'dump off' law for everything. This is what ever other state does (pretty much) so why do so many of you seem to think that our state has some special problem with our kids? Yeah, we apparently do. Everybody thinks we should be entitled to dump kids off and be free of responsibility if we don't like how our 'parenting' has turned out....... "

 Contact Your Senator wrote on October 20, 2008 11:16 am:
" It sounds to me like everyone that is posting (so far) doesn't think 3 days is old enough. Between now and then contact your senator let them know how you feel. It will make a difference if they hear from enough of us. Their contact info can be found at: http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/web/public/senators

I do agree some limits need to be set, but 3 days. We as a state have already messed this up once. Let's get it right this time!! "

 Common sense.... wrote on October 20, 2008 11:17 am:
" Last time I checked you could still give children up for adoption, even without this joke of a safe haven law. The services are there, the only thing this law is allowing at this point is lazy parents a quick out with no legal consequences. Look, the safe haven law is mostly intended for young mothers, who are probably hiding a pregnancy, as a way out rather than abandoning a baby where it will probably result in the death of the child. Fix the law to do just that. The other issues are separate and need to be handled as such. Stat-sanctioned abandonment of children is not the answer. "

 Jason wrote on October 20, 2008 11:18 am:
" Why do we have / need the law? What about offering the kids for adoption? "

 b dog wrote on October 20, 2008 11:21 am:
" People!!! come on. This law was made for the teen mother who had a baby in an alley or in her room that the parents didn't know about and she gets scared. Instead of flushing the baby in the toilet or throwing it in a dumpster she could give it to the hospital and not be blamed.
YES there are lot's of children out there that are abused and need help but there are other options. The parents should not be able to just dump and go without an responsiblity. These parents that have dropped their teen off did it because it is the easy way out. Well Life is tough and people need to take responsibility. If you can't handle your kids call HHS and have them help you. It is a system. Yes it has flaws and you might not get super fast help but buck up and take some responsibility. I wasn't an easy kid to raise but I can't imagine where I would be if my parents just dumped me off and abandon me. "

 Phil wrote on October 20, 2008 11:48 am:
" Regarding the idea that this is to prevent the dumpster abandonments - this is a very clear scenario of premeditated murder. Don't give me the temporary insanity thing - you've got to be partly insane to commit murder anyway. 1st degree murder = Death Penalty. (another task to resolve in this year's session) Lawmakers: Let's stick to RELEVANT issues please. "

 Being a parent-- wrote on October 20, 2008 11:51 am:
" just because you can make a child (baby) doesn't make you a parent. These so called parents who drop off their teenage kids aren't parents. They need to be a parent in the child's younger days not when they have become a teenager. By then they have lost control and won't be getting it back. If you don't have the time to be a parent, you shouldn't become one and there are other options. "

 Sounds Good wrote on October 20, 2008 11:55 am:
" It's important to have laws like this roughly mirror the laws of your neighboring states, or else you have people driving several states away to dump their older teen and "tech them a lesson". This will fix that, but it's not worth a special session, so we'll wait and do this in a controlled and rational manner. Unlike when they passed this poorly-written law in the first place! "

 protect babies wrote on October 20, 2008 12:03 pm:
" I agree I think it should be a higher age, maybe 1 year. Three days!!! "

 There isnt any help wrote on October 20, 2008 12:05 pm:
" To those who suggest there are other methods of help. There isn't any help given to those that need it. The agencies set up are mostly "feel good agencies" that do little to nothing to help parents. They draw their salary and don't even return phone calls. "

 Birthmom wrote on October 20, 2008 12:14 pm:
" I believe somewhere between 10-30 days would be a better time limit as some mothers/babies are not yet released from the hospital in 3 days. I agree that the Safe Haven Law is meant to help avoid babies being left in dumpsters or otherwise harmed because the parents have not been able to deal with the reality of having a child. Twelve years ago that could have been me but I knew that there were other resources available before I got to that point, and I made a successful open adoption plan. More information on alternatives should be made more readily available to people to help them make more informed decisions before they reach their breaking point. "

 What wrote on October 20, 2008 12:31 pm:
" Three days? How many babies are even home by then? Don't most go home the second or third day? The law should stay how it is. "

 Greg wrote on October 20, 2008 12:42 pm:
" Amy: There are other options. What do you think parents in Nebraska did with their children before the Safe Haven law? Yes, the children need help, but the safe haven law undermines the system for children of all ages. These parents can find help elsewhere that doesn't involve our (and your) tax dollars...just like it always has been! "

 Social Worker wrote on October 20, 2008 12:48 pm:
" Wow... talk about sweeping the real issue under the rug. Sending a letter? Are you kidding me? Half the parents that have reached the point of using the safe haven law have used ALL of those so- called resources. The issue here is prevention and responsible case management, not a useless letter that will undoubtedly miss many of the former wards' families. How many of them have moved or unofficially changed guardianship as a way to deal with the issues they face? Many. I know this from experience.

This law is going to fail 99.9% of the children in this state. No wonder we're at the bottom of the list when it comes to child welfare in this country. "

 sheila wrote on October 20, 2008 12:51 pm:
" I'm not sure what the age limit should be but I agree with most of these folks in that 3 days is not enough time to make that big of a decision. I'm thinking somewhere around 2-3 years seems more likely to be the most helpful. That age grouop seems to be the one you hear the most about being shaken, dropped, or showing up wtih broken bones. Lets try to get it right this time. "

 Im sorry wrote on October 20, 2008 12:58 pm:
" but dumping off older kids is a sign of a bad parent. It's not my fualt they are too lazy to seek out the help their children need. That is the responsibility of the parents, not the taxpaying public. There are places each and every one of the kids that has been thrown away by their parents could have been taken to instead.

Safe haven laws are intended to keep babies from getting thrown in dumpsters, not because someone decided they can't handle a child. Adoption is still an option, and there are still other ways of placing the child in state care after the three day period. "

 72 Hours is Correct wrote on October 20, 2008 1:05 pm:
" @ Yes 3 Days: You are correct. This was to help make sure newborns could live in cases where their mother didn't want them. Keep the babies out of the trash without punishing the biological mother (not even a parent at this point). Once a child is much older than this, there are other programs to help. This was for the 12 year old living on the street giving birth and not wanting to leave it in the dumpster to possibly die. Before, she could get in trouble for 'abandoning' a baby at a hospital, but now, she can leave the baby in good hands and know the baby will get the care it needs. "

 same ol same ol wrote on October 20, 2008 1:22 pm:
" The saaaaaaaaame comments, over and over and over again.
Not every kid out here is born with a mental problem. You can sure develop one when your parents are NOT the caring and loving people that parents are supposed to be. Essentially, that's what puzzles me--eveyone assumes that everybody loves and adores their children (which is great, of course) but the fact is, there are a lot of people out there having children who we all know shouldn't be. A LOT. These are the people that make this law a problem. "

 Dawn wrote on October 20, 2008 1:51 pm:
" I think that 3 days is too short of a time. Maybe a few weeks would be a better amount of time. That would give people a chance to be more realistic about the situation. "

 One of many problems wrote on October 20, 2008 2:08 pm:
" I think one of the many problems in these situations is the parents themselves. Much of the time the parents are abusive, which has led to bad behavior in the child. Or, for whatever reason, they simply don't care anymore, if they ever did. They don't care enough to seek out services and agencies that can offer help; they don't care enough to talk to the school psychologist. They instead choose to take the easy way out. (Although, for me, ABANDONING MY CHILD would be the hardest thing I could ever do.) The law as written makes it too easy to literally give away your "problem child."

I don't mean to judge these parents because I haven't walked in their shoes. But I truly feel no matter how overwhelmed you feel, giving your child away is the wrong thing to do. "

 Sigh wrote on October 20, 2008 2:33 pm:
" These safe haven laws were always intended to eliminate babies being left in garbage cans and dumpsters and the like immediately after birth. Hence, three days is more than reasonable. (As others have mentioned, the kind of person that would abandon their baby immediately after birth likely didn't give birth in the hospital, so worrying about when they're getting discharged is a moot point.) This law was never intended to be the catch-all for every problem family in the state and in the country. "

 Middle Class wrote on October 20, 2008 3:22 pm:
" Middle-Class V Poverty
Again, the middle-class is just not "getting" it. I'd like to see the stats on how many of the girls dumping their babies are middle-class or upwards. "

 I would hate to be a wrote on October 20, 2008 3:30 pm:
" ...4 day old. "

 same-o-same-o wrote on October 20, 2008 3:51 pm:
" So many people outraged, and so am I. There is definitly a flaw in the system. Don't politicians get it? "

 susan wrote on October 20, 2008 4:02 pm:
" It's not an issue of if they become a problem of the state, it's when. If a child is unwanted at 3 days old, it will be probably be unwanted at any age so it will become a ward of the state regardless and be costly to the taxpayers. Babies and children are victims and didn't ask to be neglected and/or abused. The main issue here is when the parents are not prosecuted, not what the child deserves. "

 Ted wrote on October 20, 2008 4:34 pm:
" The root of the issue is money. Services are not free and who is going to pay the bill - Nebraska taxpayers. "

 Social Worker wrote on October 20, 2008 4:42 pm:
" i agree that dumping children off is a bad idea- in fact it is very abusive in and of itself. but if a child or parent is mentally ill and they have no resources, the risk for abuse to occur is high. this law was intended to prevent abuse. this issue of older children being dropped off has exposed a lack of service that should be in place. we tax payers pay plenty more than you think. think about this: we pay for all the services AFTER the abuse has occurred. It would be so much cheaper if we paid for good prevention. "

 Buddha wrote on October 20, 2008 5:50 pm:
" I think the Legislature needs to research what the other states have for a limit. Three days old may be too soon. I'm thinking up to a year old. Also, they should not make any changes to the law until they solve the current problem in the state with available programs to help the parents of older kids, unless they plan to build bigger and more prisons! "

 Ted wrote on October 20, 2008 6:04 pm:
" So the state of Nebraska says peopel 3 days or younger are important but anyone older than that can fend for themselves if their parents can't care for them. What a caring State we are. "

 One extreme to the next wrote on October 20, 2008 6:22 pm:
" My GOD!! What is wrong with this legislature!! First they go to one extreme and now they go to the next!! So, a teenage parent who has a baby and waits for 4 days because she's agonizing over the decision would NOT be protected??

How ridiculous! If you're going to lower the age then make useful and reasonable. My god...some mothers aren't even out of the hospital for 3 days!! At least make it a few months. What is wrong with you?! Every single one of you should be booted from office - talk about pandering to the electorate.

I'll tell you EXACTLY what will happen. You come out and say you're decreasing the age to 3 days, in order to pander to your extreme right wing base, but after the elections are over and you're relatively free of voter reprisal you'll pass a 2 year limit. I'll guarantee it!!

If you think its this important then grow a pair and hold a special session and change the law immediately. This just makes me want to puke!! "

 good call wrote on October 20, 2008 6:35 pm:
" i pay for my own kids you should too there are other things that you can do to solve this. don't make be bankroll all the kids in the country "

 Naturally wrote on October 20, 2008 6:39 pm:
" Naturally, we decide to limit the days that a parent can drop off a child without facing repercussions. I'm not sure about the 3 days here. I would like to see that extended to 10 days.
Secondly, we now have become aware of the serious problem that some people are having with children older than 3-10 days old. We need to address that issue as well.
Let's make it easier for parents or guardians to get access to the help they need, let's cut the red tape for those that may be in serious mental health trouble or the parent needs a break.
My concern is still that we have a child that is a teen that would be abandoned or leave a house due to the situation. We would then have a young person on the street or worse.
Let's make sure we are protecting all the children not just the infants. "

 Shocked wrote on October 20, 2008 6:48 pm:
" Why do these Nebraska law makers think they always have to go to extremes? You go from age 18 years to 3 days old in one day! Young children will remain to be in danger if you limit it to 3 days. How many 5-day-olds do you know that can take care of themselves or can speak up to ask for help. Why don't we bring in social workers, healthcare workers and others that deal with the repercussions of a murdered or abandoned child and ask their opinions instead of out-of-touch lawmakers? "

 whatever wrote on October 20, 2008 8:19 pm:
" 72 hours, really? And this after the Journal Star has reported in prior articles that there were many senators that felt strongly all children should be included? This 72 hour thing is just being thrown out to "test the waters". I think we can all agree that a "72 hour law" is pretty much the same as no law at all. "

 Jae wrote on October 20, 2008 8:23 pm:
" I think they missed it again. Looks like they spent more time on the state fair issue than this one. Please remember to vote this year. "

 Terry wrote on October 20, 2008 9:32 pm:
" Typical "agreement" and "solution" to a problem created by the government of Nebraska in the first place. Here's what will happen: The bill will start at 3 days. After the 49 "players" introduce their pet bills this session, the "negotiations" will begin in the hallways and offices far away from public scrutiny. Senator A: "I have a bill to make it 30 days." Senator B: "You want 30 days and I have a bill to make public flatulance a felony. I'll give you my vote for 30 days if you vote for my bill." That's how it works. If every constituant in "Senator B's" district called and said they wanted it to be 40 days, and public flatuance was a God given right, they would be ignored in favor of him getting Senator A's vote. Senator A agrees, after getting a free lunch and who knows what, from the lobbyist for Nebraskans for Clean Hip Level Air. All this time, neither one has read the others bill, and if they did, they didn't understand it, or care what it said, as long as they get the vote they were promised. This is the reason we have so many bad laws in this state. The unicameral is nothing but a little group of people playing a game amongst themselves. Anyone that has spent more than a few minutes in the capitol, and has more than a potted plant I.Q. can figure this out. Even after the first wave of "term limits," there were enough "old timers" left to "teach" the new members how to "play the game." It's almost scary to immagine what other stupid laws the people of Nebraska will be subjected to in the aftemath of the "negotiations" to fix the "safe haven" debacle. And since the legislature and courts of this state have chosen to ignore the referendum petition rights of the citizens, there ain't a damn thing we can do about it! "

 Michael wrote on October 20, 2008 10:25 pm:
" This is just shows how woeful social services are when it comes to dealing with troubled children. Parents can't cope, and nobody is there to give meaningful help. "

 Interesting... wrote on October 20, 2008 11:06 pm:
" ...to see how the comments have changed from "these parents are rotten" to "what can/should we do about the kids?". I'm glad to see that people are realizing that the victims here are the children and if the parents have to unwillingly keep them, this state will be in an even bigger world of hurt.
I think the law should stay as it is because I have no faith in the legislature figuring out how to help older kids. "

 Becky wrote on October 20, 2008 11:16 pm:
" Come on!!! Not all babies are born in a Alley!!!!! Not all mom's are 12!!!! And not all children are put in dumsters!!!! As for our tax payers money, well I would rather see it go to help a child out, then to help pay for a funeral. Every case is different, so we can't judge anyone. We all make mistakes big and small. By the way abortion is wrong!!!!!!! Maybe the father said he would be there and then all of a sudden he not. 3 days is not enough. "

 Kids are our future wrote on October 21, 2008 1:30 am:
" I am sitting here reading a lot of your comments, all it says to me is that you don't have children. You don''t know what its like to be afraid that you wont be waking up the next morning. There are not alot of option out there for older kids unless you have little money. What if you are a middle class family and you have exhausted your health insurance for mental heath, what are you supposed to do get help that you can afford right, well there isn't many out there. Lower class families can get the help on a sliding scale but not for middle class. The people that drop these teens off know they can't afford it, they are probably thinking of that teen. That they will get the help they need. Everything is not about money or taxes. I don't like constantly having my taxes raised but to get help for kids it is a totally different subject. I would for one gladly pay for these teens to get help. Most parents don't want to give up their children, usually the last hope for help. If your life so wrapped up in taxes you really need to wake up and see the big picture. I for one can tell you if you have no teen you really don't know what you are talking about. You really have nothing to say. Teens are a total different kind of life. If we don't take care of the teens now in due time we will be paying more for them to sit in and out of prison so would you rather like to pay a little now or a lot for total care of later? I would like to know about all these progams people say are out there for teens to. These kids are going to be fine if people would help and get them through their education, teach them instead of downgrade their parents for trying to get them the help they need. The kid feels bad enough for what is going on with them they don't need any more negative comments from people they don't know. Get your head out of your pretend world and think before you are mean and post. "

 Jasmine wrote on October 21, 2008 10:04 am:
" Don't have kids if you can't raise them!!!???!!! Shaken baby syndrome didn't come from people who realized how hard it is to have a baby. Some people are better able to handle colicky babies for example. Some people aren't. listen to what your saying it doesn't even make since. really who goes and has a baby knowing they can't handle it. a lot of people think they can until they are faced with it. thats just common sense. yes lets wait until the parent who can't handle the child shakes the baby while waiting for adoption papers to go through. like several people said, 3 days isn't even enough time to know the hardships that a baby can bring. do you people know that some babies constantly cry and some people cannot handle an hour or two of sleep every 24hrs for the first couple weeks, months, and so on. who honestly thinks that someone shakes their baby and looks back at it thankfully. yeah lets not help those children. lets let the kids die because we don't want to pay for it, and it is their responsibility and no one else's. people need to grow up and actually experience taking care of their own child on their own without mommy & daddies help before commenting. "

 BECKY wrote on October 21, 2008 11:25 am:
" Kids are our future::::: Yes, I do have kids in fact 4. I know what is is like to have nothing but the lord helped me through it and today we are doing great!!!!! Come on!!!!! "

 The view from the inside wrote on October 22, 2008 2:56 pm:
" As a Health and Human Service employee, I must thank our State’s Administration for verifying to the general public, once again, how out of touch they really are. Those of us within State government see on a daily basis the needs of the public and the constant struggle to maintain staff and funding to provide vital services. The Administration is so proud to spout our budget surplus and yet we struggle to get permission to fill empty positions as well as continued cuts to programs.

I totally understand the concept of making people responsible for their own families and not relying upon the State. However, I also see this is not possible for many. Our system is filled with parents and children of all ages that are not capable of maintaining a solid or even a somewhat functioning family unit. It is a sad reality but these types of services are desperately needed for children of all ages. Restricting the ages of children in which we “chose” to help is not the answer.

In regard to the residents of other states utilizing our Safe Haven law, is it so terrible that our State put itself above the minimum standard? For once, wouldn’t it be nice to live in a State that exceeds its neighbors for a change instead of hiding behind lame excuses of why it is below standards?

On a final note, education is key to finding solutions for a multitude of problems. The elimination of unwanted pregnancies is paramount for many of our social services. Even though I strongly support reproductive choice, I also strongly support sex education and contraception - the largest abortion preventers. But then again, we live in an abstinence only education state. And again, how out of touch and unrealistic. "

 angered by ignorance wrote on October 27, 2008 2:39 pm:
" why is it that the newborns are the only important ones? i guess its been that way cuz wheni was 16 my mom kicked me out with no where to go and i couldnt even go to the mission because i wasnt with my mom. how about caring about all children not just the young ones. the state of nebraska don't care about the teens, just the newborns and thats bull. i;ve had to fend for myself since i was 16 and i had no help from the state. all they were tryin to do was to send me to a juvenile lock up facility like im a criminal. and i have never been in trouble. my mother just turned her back on me before i was an adult and the way they see it is that its not their problem because im old enough to get a job but nobody can sign a lease that young. 3 days old is bull. no person can decide if they can hangle it that young. what if the baby is 2 years old and the mother cant hangle it no more and she turns to shaking the baby and the baby dies of shaken baby syndrome? that's not their problem right? ofcourse not. maybe they need to put special circumstances and keep it at all ages. "

Ads by Yahoo!