Now
Fair
20°
High
32°
Low
18°

Senators to begin first-round debate on Safe Haven

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Nov 17, 2008 - 09:42:20 pm CST

The Legislature will begin first-round debate Tuesday morning on amending the safe haven law, but with a 30-day age limit instead of the original 3-day limit.

The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Monday afternoon heard nearly four hours of testimony —from child welfare experts, hospital officials, parents, a former foster child and a Department of Health and Human Services official — on two bills that would amend the law. Afterward, the committee voted 7-1 to advance the amended version of LB1, introduced by Speaker Mike Flood on behalf of Gov. Dave Heineman.

Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers argued on behalf of sending the original bill to the floor for debate, even though he doesn’t believe in safe haven bills, and doesn’t believe services are attainable for older children.

Story Photo
Gov. Dave Heineman

“The die is cast, the skids are greased,” he said. “You can get in the way of the train if you want to, but you’re not going to stop it. The only train that’s going to make it to the station is LB1.”

The committee expects the bill will be subjected to a number of amendments once it gets to the floor. Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery has already filed an amendment to change the age limit of the safe haven bill to 1 year.

A motion to repeal the law, to stop dropoffs of older children and to give state senators time in the regular session to deal with the issues that have surfaced is also an option, said Lincoln Sen. DiAnna Schimek, a member of the committee.

“If the question of the (age limit) puts us in knots, (repeal) might be the solution,” she said.

The committee heard from 21 people. Only a couple agreed a 3-day age limit was the answer in this special session.

Even though they knew the Legislature most likely couldn’t deal with anything but the age limit, most wanted to have their say about the problems the law had uncovered with services for older children. Thirty-four children — none of them younger than a year old —have been dropped off at Nebraska hospitals since the law went into effect.

Among those who spoke was Peter Meyer, who told a chilling story about his family’s experience with HHS in the 1990s and his parents attempts to get help for the troubled children they had adopted.

In the end, it destroyed his family, he said, and he believes it led to the untimely death of his mother in July.

His mother, an attorney, and his father, a doctor, brought four children into their family, beginning when Meyer was 7. Two of them had severe problems.

“The Department of Health and Human Services failed to inform my parents about the psychological condition of the children who were being adopted into our home,” Meyer said.

It became evident not long after they came to live there the children were seriously disturbed, with attachment disorders that made them incapable of forming relationships, he said.

His parents took them to many counselors. When it became clear the parents were in over their head, they wanted the children removed and placed elsewhere. HHS said if they tried that, they would be accused of child abuse and in danger of losing their biological children.

The behavior crushed the family, he said, and in the end the pressure caused his father to leave. His mother postponed surgery after surgery needed for the rheumatoid arthritis she’d had since childhood, searching for help for the children, which she never found.

“It’s really upsetting to know that a law like this with no age limit could have helped my family,” he said.

“It could have saved my family. It could have saved my mom.”

Senators also heard from the other side: a 28-year-old man who was abandoned as a boy by his mother. Scott Wosterel, now a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student, and his brothers were taken from their family when he was 9 and once in foster care moved around 15 times. Eventually he went back to his mother, but she sent him away again.

“My heart was shut down by abandonment,” he said. “It leaves a scar on a person’s life.”

Even if a parent says she loves her child as she leaves him, a child is smart enough to figure out that’s not the case, he said.

Some who testified expressed distrust that if the Legislature does not deal with older children in the special session, they will be forgotten later on.

If the pressure is taken off, said Voices for Children in Nebraska director Kathy Bigsby Moore, “I am fearful we will not see the true solution we need to see.”

Topher Hansen, representing the Behavioral Health Coalition, said the state was operating under a system dominated by cost, not care.

“We’re whittled down, and now we’re into bone,” he said.

But Judiciary Chairman Brad Ashford of Omaha told providers they must work together, come up with a plan and bring it to the Legislature by the regular session.

“You’re the experts,” he said.

Todd Landry, director of HHS division of children and family services, underwent some tough questioning from senators.

Although HHS repeatedly said none of the children dropped off at hospitals were in immediate danger of being harmed, some had threatened suicide, Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop said.

But Landry said that didn’t mean they were actively suicidal at the time.

Only three of the 29 children still in the state’s care had serious enough problems to be placed in higher-level treatment, he said. All others are in foster homes, with relatives or in shelters.

Lincoln Sen. Amanda McGill said she was disturbed by some of the judgmental statements made by Landry about parents who used the law, and that he had not personally contacted them when they called him. He found time, she said, to personally contact members of the media.

Landry said it was not the role of government to intervene in a family’s life.

In the end, he said HHS has always tried to be as open and transparent as it can be.

“All I’m asking you to do is step it up with us in the next six to eight weeks,” Ashford said, asking for his help to solve the problems of the families who need services.

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


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Outside the Box wrote on November 17, 2008 3:04 pm:
" You say "flexible", I say "wishy-washy".

C'mon Dave, instead of waiting to see how the wind is going to blow, be a true leader and put your opinion out there. "

REV wrote on November 17, 2008 3:20 pm:
" Flexibility might be code for "just do something", this is an embarrassing situation and HHS looks inept. Anything less than addressing "dumpster babies" and hours after the baby is born makes a farce out of the law. Either get to the roots or address the pending and fallout problem of older children who are being abandoned by the state if the law changes. Change the law to meet intent or leave it alone, the laws original intent changes once hospital born babies are included.. "

Sandie wrote on November 17, 2008 3:36 pm:
" Heineman is missing the point that discrimination based on age begins as soon as the unicameral endorses an arbitrary age. He's also not considering the feature that gives protection to a mother who is suffering or driven by great need or distress with the burden a child or children brings beyond what is tolerable. The child in swaddling clothes doesn't have to be an infant to deserve help from HHS. "

Hank wrote on November 17, 2008 4:30 pm:
" Just what we need...a Governor who is flexible with age limits for the safe haven law. I hope people are watching his actions and don't vote for him upon re-election, because he's part of this whole problem. They need to do more in ways of providing assistance to people in need and make the safe haven more in tune with other states and put it at 3 days old. When people are driving from other states to dump their kids in NE, then you know you got problems. "

Kevin Parrish wrote on November 17, 2008 4:33 pm:
" I would like to congratulate the State of Nebraska for their apparently nation-wide reputation as a great place to raise children. Even if you believe that abandoning children is a horrible and heartless act for a parent to do, be proud of the fact that Nebraska is viewed as a better place for their children. I know from personal experience that Nebraska is a great place to grow up, so don't begrudge the parents that feel your state can do a better job raising their children than they can. Be proud that others also recognize that Nebraska offers a good life. "

One Out In The Third wrote on November 17, 2008 5:29 pm:
" I still suggest the law should extend through at least pre-school age. Any child under the age of five...unless in day-care...has few protections...out of sight...out of mind. While the law was supposed to be "designed" for new-borns...and for the parent(s) to decide if "abandonment" is the proper course of action...pre-schoolers are the most vulnerable. Leave that age group open to the Safe Haven Law.

"Flexible" means non-commital to me...make a suggestion once in a while Governor Heineman! This is like a Seinfeld episode. I am also beginning to think there should be a competency hearing for anyone wanting to run for the two-term limit in the Unicameral. "

just a thought wrote on November 17, 2008 5:31 pm:
" My thinking here is if a teen or any woman has a baby, and she is NOT at a hospital, why would she need to keep the baby for three (3) days first?? Why not change the age to birth or (1)hour to ????? age. I was adopted and knowing my history with birth mom I'm grateful that she didnt even know whether I was a boy or girl let a lone put me in that danger!! "

speaking from central nebraska wrote on November 17, 2008 6:03 pm:
" This was meant to be a safe haven law about newborns. I dont' see how everyone is so up in arms about the governor's use of the word "flexible". It's not as if he's "flexible" about including the age of 11 of 5 or 15. 30 days is still pretty much a newborn, and I believe still speaks to the intent of the law. He had stated his opinion once - 3 days. He has now (apprently) seen that many others have valid reasons for expanding it just a bit. Either way, he is clearly supporting the original intent of the law - protecting newborns.

Now obviously, the HHS system and parents who are at the end of their rope have needs and are apparently not well connected. Read: this is a DIFFERENT issue from protecting newborns from being abandoned by mothers who don't want to care for a baby anymore.

So many people are wanting to blend this all together like it's the same problem. It's not. The parents using the safe haven law have different problems from the mom who sees that mothering a newborn is way more than she can handle. The safe have law is way more about the problems the mother has with being a mother (most likely). The situation with older kids seems to be more about frustrated parents and kids with mental health needs.

Let's not muck the two issues together. Let the legislature fix the obvious problem of the age limit for the ORIGINAL law. Then let the legislature do whatever they need to so they can make changes, gather more information, network and promote resources in communities, whatever. There's certainly plenty of room for innovation and improvement here.

These are two separate problems!! "

whatever wrote on November 17, 2008 6:15 pm:
" This issue will be such a minor side show issue by this time next year most of will forget there was ever a problem. "

Duh wrote on November 17, 2008 7:11 pm:
" Mike Johanns fixed the state's mental health system. He promised he would. Oh, no -- wait -- Johanns didn't. He found something else to do. Heineman should name former Sen. Jim Jensen mental/behavioral health czar to finally fix the system before the feds come in and take over. "

Ricky wrote on November 17, 2008 8:34 pm:
" Soon the Legislature will pass a bill and the Gov. will sign it.
Then Nebraska will not be a spotlight for the inadequecies (sp) of mental health support in this country.
The Legislature will soon wash their hands of this problem and we can go on pretending all is well and good and every parent can get the help they need from the government.

Ricky From Omaha "

John wrote on November 17, 2008 8:35 pm:
" Fix the problem with "troubles" older children in the next session. The age for the "safe haven" law is what these senators are suppose to changing at this time. No need to recreate the wheel. Take a look at all those other states which already had the law and had no problem with. "

speechless wrote on November 17, 2008 9:03 pm:
" It amazes me how HHS gets the heat from decisions like this. Who made the decision??? Oh---yeah the government. HHS is dictated by these same officials so if you wonder why they haven't stepped up to the plate it's because the government took the resources away from our state and told the community to provide them. How come the community doesn't respond? Because you do not get paid enough, because the government only allows a few measley dollars per day to care for mentally ill people (IF you get paid at all), developmentally disabled, and wayward teenagers. The GOVERNMENT needs to step up---the LEGISLATURES and our GOVERNOR need to step up and stop bragging about all the money they have stockpiled but do something productive with it to HELP our communities and our families. This whole situation screams of people needing help---it's no longer about safe haven for newborns, it's about safe haven for our entire community! "

John wrote on November 18, 2008 2:30 pm:
" Sounds like a lot more time is being wasted. Every state in the country already has a similar law. If they had only copied one of these laws which worked the first time. Change the "age"requirement and get out of town. The rest can wait. "

JB wrote on November 18, 2008 2:33 pm:
" Stay on the reason for this special secession, "Age Limit". This question of older children can not be looked at in the secession. Legally it must wait till next year. Decide on an age and be over. "