Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood gathered a working group of Nebraska state senators Sunday night in Omaha to address concerns regarding LB 157, Nebraska's safe haven law.
JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star | Posted: Sunday, September 28, 2008 7:00 pm
A working group of six state senators met Sunday night in Omaha to hash over potential changes to Nebraska’s new safe haven law.
Among topics discussed by Speaker Mike Flood, and other mostly Omaha-area senators, were the age range of children included in the law, access to services for families in crisis, children’s mental health services and available resources for parents in the state.
“Everything was on the table,” Flood said.
Senators, along with state and private agencies that work with the welfare of children, have been concerned that LB157, passed earlier this year, did not define an age range for dropping off children in designated safe havens and has led to 14 children being given over by parents and guardians.
None of them were infants, as intended in the original safe haven bill brought forward by Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center in 2007.
Flood said the senators need an orderly, thoughtful process rather than rushing into a special session to address the issue.
The safe haven law was passed to protect all at-risk children in the state, not for the convenience of their parents or guardians, he said, and not “simply to avoid his or her parental responsibilities.”
“We want to make sure we don’t short-circuit parents’ responsibility to exercise reasonable judgment,” he said.
It’s hard to argue, however, that the nine children from one family handed over a week ago in Omaha aren’t in a better spot now by their father taking advantage of the safe haven law, Flood said.
The group, that in addition to Flood included Sens. Brad Ashford, Rich Pahls and Tom White of Omaha, Tim Gay of Papillion and Stuthman, discussed potential amendments to LB157, including clarification of the ages of children to be included in safe haven immunity.
The group did not reach agreement on what the age should be, Flood said.
White said the bill, by using the word “child,” clearly intended the immunity to be for parents with children under 14.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines children as those under 14, he said. A minor, more than 15 years old, is not included in the legal term of “children,” the dictionary says.
White wants to make sure that is clear in the law.
At the same time, he said, he would rather see any of the children now in custody getting help rather than having been harmed or killed.
“A dead child cannot be corrected,” he said.
The Legislature had no interest in providing for the convenience of parents, he said, but rather intended to prevent harm of children.
The working group will reconvene in the next couple of weeks, Flood said, and he expects the group to come up with amendments for the bill by the end of the year, if not sooner.
“Can this be modified? I think that it can,” Flood said.
Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.