Now
A Few Clouds
82.0°
High
84°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Senators pass 30-day limit on first-round debate

Comments 17 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 - 10:33:39 am CST

A safe haven bill that will allow parents to legally abandon an infant up to 30 days old is headed toward the station.

And Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers — who Monday likened the bill to a runaway train — sang “toot, toot” during floor debate Tuesday.

Nebraska state senators spent almost six hours primarily pointing to the serious problems uncovered by the state’s current broad safe haven law, before giving 40-4 first-round approval to the 30-day protection period.

Related Media

The story so far: the Legislature's special session

Get all the coverage of the Legislature's special session called to address Nebraska's safe haven law. (Katie Nieland/JournalStar.com)...

Comments: 0
Rated:

The age limit, offered by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee and supported by Gov. Dave Heineman, is expected to pass during this short special session.

Safe haven laws originated to stop infant deaths, but Nebraska’s law, passed last spring, gave protection to parents of children of all ages.

And instead of infants, parents have dropped off 34 children, many of them teens, since September. Many of the parents said they couldn’t get the services they thought the child needed.

During debate Tuesday, senators described parents desperate to find help for their older, often mentally ill, children — and a state agency that refuses to recognize that problem.

“I am seeing a disconnect between what is happening and the response from the Health and Human Services Department,” said Omaha Sen. Steve Lathrop.

He said agency director Todd Landry’s doesn’t appear to recognize the problem. Instead, the director for children and family services tells parents to call the United Way, their church or a teacher, Lathrop pointed out.

“The state has two big problems. One with the delivery of services and the other with an administration that doesn’t recognize there is a problem,” said Lathrop. 

His opinion was shared by other senators.

Omaha Sen. Gwen Howard, who retired after 34 years working for Health and Human Services as a social worker, also talked about her perception of Landry’s comments that “once we correct the age, the problem will disappear.” 

“The problem is not going to disappear,” she said. “Everyone doing the work knows that. Every parent of a troubled child knows that. Everyone in the the court system knows that. Why doesn’t the director of children and family services know that?”

Instead agency leaders downplay the problem, she said.

“We need a department that that is attuned to the needs of the people who come to them. We need a director of child welfare who is going to be honest with us, who is going to come with solutions,” Howard said.

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Nantkes took a long-term perspective.

“A human service system devoid of leadership and appropriate funding ... over the course of many, many years brings us to this point,” she said.

“Those are not unintended consequences,” she said of the drop-offs. “Those are serious consequences.”

Then she pointed to the other problems facing Health and Human Services, including potential loss of federal funding for the Beatrice State Developmental Center for Nebraskans with developmental disabilities.

“How many task forces do we need? How many class action lawsuits do we need? How many Department of Justice investigations do we need?”

Several senators also suggested that finding a real solution will cost money.

Many Nebraskans pride themselves on saving dollars, said Sen. Vickie McDonald, one of 16 senators who will not be returning in January. “The biggest concern is that this is going to cost money.

“So I challenge you to make sure you fund this program so we have services across the state for all our children who are mentally disturbed.”

Nebraskans want things cheap, said Omaha Sen. Don Preister.

“Our children are under siege and largely it’s because we are cheap,” he said.

“We closed mental health facilities to save dollars. Being cheap. Now we are looking at only a three-day (changed to 30 days) safe haven law. Being cheap,” he said.

“I don’t think being cheap is economical.”

Senators voted down amendments Tuesday to lengthen the age limit to 120 days old and up to one year before giving the first of three required votes to the 30-day bill.

The 30 days allows moms with postpartum depression to give up infants, but doesn’t interfere with the traditional system of legally relinquishing babies for adoption, according to Sen. Brad Ashford, Judiciary Committee chairman.

Adoption agencies in the past have worried safe haven laws would encourage abandonment rather than a more thoughtful legal relinquishment, where agencies can collect health information for the child and protect fathers’ rights.

Ashford expects few if any attempts to derail the 30-day protection during second-stage debate Wednesday.

Senators also promised to address the broader issues of services for families in crisis during the 2009 regular session, which begins in January. Ashford said he will begin working with those interested in finding solutions before the special session ends.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@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  
still dumb wrote on November 18, 2008 5:54 pm:
" so now the unicameral is giving parents 30 days to get to Nebraska to abandon their kid? Great. 72 hours is the max this law should provide for. "
not dumb wrote on November 18, 2008 8:05 pm:
" 72 hours is dumb because you are in a hospital still for the first 72 hours and the nursing staff is caring for the baby for the first couple of days while mom is recovering. Mom truly does not take over until baby and mom leave the hospital, after 72 hours "
Joseph P. Sokolovsky wrote on November 18, 2008 8:27 pm:
" Why not 30-days, and ONLY those children born "in Nebraska." Why are the bone heads in Lincoln...so eager to take unwanted babies from all over the United States???

And this "messed up deal" is ALL on Gov Dave...."the buck stops on your desk Gov," you foolishly signed a Safe Haven Bill with the age limit at
19 years old....One last question: Gov Dave who are you going to fire and blame for this "messed up deal?" That is your management style BLAME OTHERS AND FIRE THEM!! There are "leaders" and their are "politicians," Gov Dave is definitely a politician!! Now we are finding out why Gov Dave was then Gov Mike Johanns 4th choice for governor!! "
Sue wrote on November 18, 2008 8:40 pm:
" How very sad for these children. I cannot even fathom what my self esteem and future would hold if my mom would have "dropped me off" at a hospital. I was raised in a small Nebraska town. My dad died when I was 7 - quite unexpectedly of a heart attack - my mom was 52 years old, sixth grade educated with three children at home - 12, 11 and 7. She cleaned houses, took in ironing, worked in the local nursing home - whatever it took. And you know what? We never knew that we were a single parent household. We just held onto each other and helped each other out. I don't know what the solution is to this safe haven law. I just feel sad that we all judge every single news article or person because we can hide behind these comments and can remain anonymous. I just want each of you to think about these kids - whether two weeks old or 17 years old. They are human beings and they are "difficult" for a reason and they need help. I was fortunate enough to have a mom who was resourceful and taught us good, honest, hard-working values. Not every child or teenager has those advantages that I enjoyed. Rather than legislate which child needs help, why don't we get back to the basics of community and compassion. And stop thinking that some large Government agency is going to solve it. It begins with each of us and it begins with paying attention and caring. "
responsibility wrote on November 18, 2008 9:39 pm:
" Sue - your situation is sad, but I'm guessing that you are now an adult making these observations. The youth of today (young 20's & under) do not have a work ethic like those 30+ (even some of them are lazy). It is easier for them to stay home, have kids, and have the government pay for everything. Our entire welfare system needs to be reformed if we are going to make any changes! Too many people know how to "play the system" and make a lot of income doing it! They can make more money staying at home playing on their XBOX than if they went out and got a job. Oh, and they don't want to actually WORK if they do get a job. I had an applicant recently (I own a business) tell me that she would not work before 9am (I open at 8am) and had to be off by 4pm (I close at 6) and needed at least 1.5 hours for lunch. She also didn't want to do any cleaning, vacuuming, or dusting. She felt that she should be making at least $15.00/hr. OH, and she dropped out of high school last year - doesn't even have a GED. She couldn't spell anything correctly on the application! AND THIS IS OUR YOUTH! We need to make changes starting at the beginning. Educate the kids who are having these kids. Our country is getting fat, lazy & stupid! It is far to easy to let someone else do the work than to actually have to put effort into anything - and that includes raising children! "
Marty wrote on November 18, 2008 9:45 pm:
" In true liberal fashion, Sen. Preister has an easy solution-more money! In typical liberal fashion, he attributes any resistance to bigger government to "being cheap." Yes, Senator, there should be no limit to what the schmucks who work and pay taxes should "contribute", should there? Good riddance. "
Kevin wrote on November 19, 2008 1:13 am:
" a 30 day age limit is much better than no age limit. Did they put a clause in there about the infants be from Nebraska only? If not we will probably hear stories about some mother from Utah or some place drives all the way out here just to drop off baby. "
where is all the wisdom wrote on November 19, 2008 6:23 am:
" this situation brought to you by term limits "
Shelly wrote on November 19, 2008 8:23 am:
" Sorry to point out the obvious here, but it seems like the commentators just aren't making any sense. Joseph, the only reason out-of-state children were being dropped off was because there was no age limit. If they lower it to thirty days nobody is going to drive/fly here to drop off their babies because every other state has a safe haven law too. Also, responsibility, I'm 22, and I have a very good work ethic. I've worked since I was 14. I worked to buy myself a car and put myself through school, and now I work a normal 40 workshift plus overtime almost every week. Please stop classifing youth to be lazy, because we're not. I've seen plenty of 30+ people ripping off the government for free money. "
John wrote on November 19, 2008 8:27 am:
" As the usual the State Senator are talking to hear themselves talk and getting totally off the subject of the special secession. Every state in the country already has a "Safe Haven" law. It there something about Nebraska that it needs a completely new version? There are already close to fifty "wheels" in use, use one of them. "
Kenneth wrote on November 19, 2008 8:37 am:
" The current law is not helping, but what are some of these parents supposed to do when they can't get help? I would rather the state take them than the kids end up on the streets commiting crimes. "
B wrote on November 19, 2008 8:53 am:
" While this law has clearly created issues, it has sure opened up a lot of eyes to the lack of help available for these families in crisis. Now that they are lowering the age limit, they can now focus on the bigger picture of services needed as brought to light by this law. The legislature could not do anything about the out of state children during the special session because the Governor limited the special session call to the age issue only. That's also why they can't put in additional procedures or do anything to address the older child issue until they return in January. Mr. Landry seems to think that fixing the age limit will cure all. His comments through all of this have been shameful. Also, the law has been treated as applying to kids under 18 or 19, but in fact, because there is no specific definition of child in this law, it should have been applied to children as defined in the common law which says a child is one who has not turned 14. "
other states wrote on November 19, 2008 9:53 am:
" Other states will not be dropping their children off in Nebraska. The only reason those parents from other states were dropping their children off in NE is because their own state has an age limit (every state in the US has a safe haven law with an infant age limit). Every child from a different state that was dropped off in NE was returned to their own state within 2 days! I think a 30 day age limit is better than the 3 day limit they were discussing before. "
Check the facts wrote on November 19, 2008 10:03 am:
" Nebraska is one of the last states to pass a "Safe Haven" law. It's pretty unlikely that we'll see many children from out of state.
Funding help for these children now is a whole lot less expensive than building new prisons later and supporting the inmates that we failed to help now. When one of these "children" that we failed to help breaks into your home to get drug money or ends up shooting someone during a convenience store robbery, how cheap will we feel.Pay now or PAY later. "
STF wrote on November 19, 2008 10:26 am:
" Term limits meant nothing when they created this bill. Chambers, Schimek and all the others voted on the original bill last session. "
Sigh wrote on November 19, 2008 1:11 pm:
" Well, here we go. Someone on the boards complaining that the state might have to spend a dollar to fix something. Well, guess what? It IS the state's responsibility to care for its children when no one else will.

Yes, in a utopia, every parent would be a great parent and provide their children with everything they need to grow up healthy, happy, loved and successful. But guess what? In the real world, that doesn't always happen. We should be spending more money on better mental health services. We should be spending more on health and other social services. We should be spending more money on education and training.

I don't care if your taxes go up to do it! Get these things properly funded to start fixing some of these problems. Having a society isn't cheap. Quit whining every time your taxes might go up. What doesn't increase in cost over time??

Go buy yourself a deserted island if you don't want to pay for public programs and services.

Where can we "drop off" and abandon some of these "I don't want to pay any taxes...EVER" cheapskates?? "
re sigh wrote on November 19, 2008 10:25 pm:
" AMEN to you! and to Sen. Preister! He at least is acknowledging that you get what you pay for and what your willing to spend. Mental Health services should be cost effective and secured for our citizens. Unfortunately the state hospitals have been closed down and limited to primarily caring for sex offenders. The nearly 80 teenagers they cared for are gone, they had to go out of state costing NE millions because they closed down the few places that took the worst of the worst. Go figure! Now other states are coming here--guess it's payback for all the kids we shipped out. "

Ads by Yahoo!