Now
Fair
83.0°
High
88°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

2 children abandoned under safe haven law

Comments 33 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By The Associated Press

Monday, Nov 03, 2008 - 01:38:45 pm CST

OMAHA — Two more children have been abandoned at Nebraska hospitals under the state’s safe haven law.

In Sarpy County, a child was left at Midlands Hospital in Papillion Sunday afternoon. Hospital spokeswoman Kelly Grinnell gave no other details.

Another child was left at Children’s Hospitals in Omaha Sunday night. Hospital spokeswoman Cheri Lytle says the teenager was dropped off around 11:15 p.m.

Story Photo

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...

Comments: 0
Rated:

Related Link(s):


DHHS' Safe Haven page

If the state confirms both, they would be the 25th and 26th children left under the law since it went into effect this summer.

The Department of Health and Human Services is expected to released more information on Monday.

Gov. Dave Heineman has called a special session to deal with the safe haven law. It is intended to protect unwanted newborns, but it doesn’t set an age limit.

Currently, Nebraska’s law is the only one in the country that lets parents or caregivers leave children as old as 18 at a state-licensed hospital without fear of prosecution for the abandonment. None of the first 24 cases involved a newborn, and three of the children were brought to Nebraska from other states.

Most states have age limits ranging from three days to about a month.

Gov. Dave Heineman last week called a rare special session of the Legislature to fix the law, which was intended to protect unwanted newborns. The special session begins Nov. 14.

During the special session, Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk will introduce a bill to change the age limit to three days old, but senators could adjust the age.


$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  
Joey wrote on November 2, 2008 9:19 pm:
" I Think 3 days old is a little too young, I think you should have age limit at 2 or 3 years old and a special program for parents that are not able to take care of the kids from the young ages and up. If the parents can't take care of there kids then everyone and including the State of Nebraska have a duty to help the child out and try to give them a future. "
suggestion wrote on November 2, 2008 9:51 pm:
" How about leaving the law as it is, but with one change. The safe haven law should only apply to children who are residents of Nebraska. The number of children who have been taken to the hospitals clearly shows that there is a need for more programs that are easily accessible. This helps those in need to access the programs. Taking children from other states is not Nebraskan's responsibility. "
whatever wrote on November 2, 2008 11:06 pm:
" We can't afford a safe haven law. Let's leave it at 3 days. At 3 days the state will have little financial responsibility but we will all feel good because we are doing "something". Those that wanted to leave it open to any child have come around and realize money is the most important thing not the safety of a child and will do NOTHING to ensure that Nebraska is truly a safe haven. Those that wanted an expanded definition of the children to be covered by this law have all of sudden become quiet as they hide in a corner afraid of "making waves". They care not for the children but certainly care for their political career. Go quiet into the night ye cowards. "
Christine wrote on November 2, 2008 11:36 pm:
" Ok, so if we do away with this law or change it to only include older children but not too old (where will those lines be drawn?) what will happen to those kids and babies with parents who don't know what to do? The same thing that happens elsewhere-- they are still abandoned, abused or killed. The state will have to take care of them no matter where or when they are abandoned. The idea that parents go scot free isn't great, but if it prevents abuse, neglect and other harm from befalling those little angels, then I think we can as a state deal with it. What we should be pushing for is a improved funding for the foster care system including more caseworkers for improved monitoring and incentives for families as well as stringent background checks and continued monitoring for all foster care givers. These people, in general, have big hearts and will be a better solution for these kids- even the teens. "
time for a change wrote on November 3, 2008 3:56 am:
" Thanks to the Governor for calling a special session on this issue.

No legislation is better than bad legislation, and this is bad legislation. I hope our Senators will limit the drop-offs to not older than a month. Children shouldn't have to live with knowing that their parents abadoned them; this is especially the case for older children and teenagers. "
social worker wrote on November 3, 2008 5:57 am:
" Alabama has the age right even thought they have the oldest drop off age, next to NE. 6 years old. Children six and under, may not be in school yet. Children not old enough to be in school are most likly home all day. these children could go days, weeks, months without being seen by anyone other than family. if something was wrong,,, abuse, neglect ect. no one would know or check on these children and they would not be missing from anywhere, i.e. school... This age group of children is very vunerable in that they may not be seen on a regular basis by anyone. "
been desparate wrote on November 3, 2008 7:07 am:
" Safe haven law may need some chaging but so does the help that is made available in Nebraska. As a parent of a troubled teenager that searched for help in Lincoln and was either turned away because child was not suicidal or high from several institutes saying sorry we can not help. Or it will cost money front but we still can not hold them if they decide to walk away, or hey try one of the crisis lines. You might get lucky and get a person that tells you about the same thing as the responses above. Or wait better yet the one that called back 3 days later ( this one was a recorded message). ya know if I was calling a crisis line I probably needed help then not 3 days later! Nebraska needs to help not only the child but the parent also with dealing with the reason why they are being left. If that parent has loved and cared for that child for years they are probably just at the end of their rope wanting help. After running into the all road blocks that are set up to get help. This is where the problem lies. I do believe it should be limited to our children in Nebraska because unfortunatly we can not handle all the others. "
Please wrote on November 3, 2008 7:38 am:
" Why is it that people can't see that the age thing is eye opening to a just as serious problem? I have not been surprised by the numbers because I have worked with these kids and many of them would have been in a much better place if this law had been in affect in the past. Yes it is hard on these kids being dropped off but it is better than being abused, exposed to drugs, or parents that obviously do not want them. These are our forgotten children please don't let them down by changing this law. "
To busy wrote on November 3, 2008 8:33 am:
" Our fine governor has been to busy doing to call the session any earlier than he did. His vigorous schedule of endorsing candidates has all his time tied up and can't be bothered with things of this nature before the elections are over. "
Haha wrote on November 3, 2008 8:40 am:
" I saw somebody dress up as the Nebraska Safe Haven Law for Halloween. It was great! "
CS wrote on November 3, 2008 9:25 am:
" It was never intended just for newborns-if they had wanted it to read that way, they should have written it that way from the start. "
wally wrote on November 3, 2008 9:27 am:
" The purpose of the Safe Haven Law is not (or at least it shouldn't be) to give parents a way out when they don't want the responsibilities any more. The purpose is to give a newborn baby a chance at life instead of being left in a bathroom stall or dumpster. I don't understand how so many people fail to make that distinction. "
Kris wrote on November 3, 2008 9:33 am:
" This problem is so serious, changing age to 3 days is a very bad idea, what after 3 days, then a parent who refuses or is unalbe to care for the child could turn to abuse and neglect. We have to protect children, even teens. Somehow things must turn around, our children are our future, we can not turn our backs to protecting them from abuse and neglect because they are over 3 days old! "
useless wrote on November 3, 2008 9:52 am:
" its a useless law regardless of the age. its intent was to prevent babies getting dumped in the trash. guess what not one baby in 26 cases. this should tell you its not needed. "
curious wrote on November 3, 2008 11:12 am:
" how old these children were that were dropped off this time. It seems like they always highlight the teens, but don't always specify the age if they are younger. I'd like to know exactly how many 72-hr infants have been abandoned. Would changing the law make any sort of impact? Probably not. "
common sense wrote on November 3, 2008 11:58 am:
" Age limit 6 years old. Social worker has this right.
Nebraska residents only. We can't fix it for everyone but are responsible for our own. "
Lincolnite wrote on November 3, 2008 12:38 pm:
" WHAT?!? Are you people saying we can't help less than thirty children since this law was enacted? If we had six hundred or something it would be a different deal ... but less than thirty? Are you kidding me? We've seen Nebraska companies lay off more than that over a week -- and you want to turn your back on these kids??!?! "
Dear United States Parents... wrote on November 3, 2008 12:58 pm:
" Dear United States Parents,

Please stop leaving your children here. It's clear that you don't want them - why do you think we would?

Thanks,
Nebraska Taxpayers "
Rural wrote on November 3, 2008 1:14 pm:
" Is it just me or does all this happen in lincoln and Omaha, never out west. Maybe there are just more closely knit families and or more values in the rural community. "
Rick wrote on November 3, 2008 1:52 pm:
" Leave it to Nebraska law makers to screw this up! Where in the heck do they get these people? Now you know why people are moving elsewhere to other states-cause the leadership in this state is horrible. Don't ever believe what comes out of someone's mouth when they want to win a seat or are up for reelection. "
another safe teen wrote on November 3, 2008 2:34 pm:
" Social worker and Lincolnnite are exactly right. Before the age of six, these kids are completely vulnerable and any law that doesn't take that into account is useless in my opinion. Again, I still feel that we've opened Pandora's box and can't just close it like nothing happened. We have to do something to help the families of teens in crisis! "
another safe teen wrote on November 3, 2008 3:00 pm:
" You should all listen to Martina McBride's "Concrete Angel" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9VHl9zbCjY) and see if you can get thru it without a tear in your eye. Then decide if it is important to keep this law intact. "
Julie wrote on November 3, 2008 3:11 pm:
" I would like to see it limited to Nebraska residents but kept at the age where teens could be helped. It has not been a huge flood of children being dropped off but it has highlighted how little help is out there for our middle schoolers and high schoolers who need a more stable environment or additional mental health care in order to successfully transition into adulthood. "
close knit wrote on November 3, 2008 3:13 pm:
" No, the reason you don't see rural/small town residents dropping off their kids is that we can't afford the gas to drive to Lincoln or Omaha. "
JT wrote on November 3, 2008 3:14 pm:
" Does the Governor and legislature think that maybe these children who are left behind by relatives who have tried to get help and can't for one reason or another.They really do need help and this is the only way they can get it. Maybe our leaders should look at that picture instead of looking at changing the law maybe look at how the state can help these people without all the strings that are attached when they go looking for help and get turned down. "
Ivars Augstums wrote on November 3, 2008 3:14 pm:
" I believe that the state should leave the Safe Haven Law as is. Change the law stating that all children left should be only Nebraska residents. "
another safe teen wrote on November 3, 2008 3:15 pm:
" wrong link: here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ7L85V1ylk&feature=related "
It kills me wrote on November 3, 2008 3:18 pm:
" when people chalk this up to our 'poor leadership'. Who exactly put them into 'leadership'? Our sophisticated citizens. Or is it you all-knowing non-voters who make these critiques? I would gather, ultimately, that the people that blame and make quips about our leaders are a) not part of the solution, and b) would never successfully win the position themselves due to lack of education and credentials, and lack of the charisma it takes to be elected. "
Rick wrote on November 3, 2008 4:13 pm:
" Misspellings drive me insane. Watch Concrete Angel here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI "
Kevin wrote on November 3, 2008 5:44 pm:
" Novemeber 14th can't come fast enough "
person wrote on November 3, 2008 6:05 pm:
" i think 3 days is not enough time. it should be a month or two that you can drop kids off. what if the child is born with birth defects and is in the hospital longer than 3 days?? then the parents can't leave the child at the hospital because it has been longer than 3 days. "
KristineK wrote on November 4, 2008 11:12 am:
" My question is--and I'd love for someone that is IN this situation somehow can answer this because this is what people want to know--WHAT services are people wanting, needing that they're not getting for their adolescents? I've read that many of these kids are or WERE state wards, and by dropping them off, the only thing that's going to change is where they sleep at night, and there aren't really much of any places for that, either. I'm not trying to be snarky, here. I want to know what services people are specifically in need of--I think everyone needs to know this for the true issues to be addressed. "
Been there wrote on November 4, 2008 6:23 pm:
" What services are needed? That's a great question that you would only know if you've been down this path, which we have. The services we needed were long term residential treatment followed by aftercare. The problem with attaining such services is the incredibly long process it takes to get into a program. The safe haven expedites this process and takes all the tedious research away from the parent and into the hands of the professionals. Our child got sick in our home they need to be romoved in order to get well. I'm glad to say that happened, only because we were bulldogs in obtaining proper care. "

Ads by Yahoo!