Nebraska gets it right!

I blogged recently about the Nebraska legal debacle regarding the "safe haven" law that had been enacted there. Nebraska was one of the last states to actually enact a safe haven law and the author of the original bill included any minor children through the age of 18. This created untold problems when, even as recently as last Thursday, teenagers were routinely being dropped off at hospitals there. One distraught father (his wife had died) left nine children on the doorstep of a hospital. Another complication occurred because the state of Nebraska stops taking children into foster care when they turn 18, and the law didn't account for this. Some teens who were between the ages of 18 and 19 were left there and couldn't be put into foster care. That created quite a dilemma. As a result, the Nebraska legislature convened in a special session last Friday to correct the law that was creating so much controversy and leaving children in the lurch. Once again, the author of the original bill modified it too far in the other direction, indicating a 3 day (72 hour) time limit from the birth to drop off the child in a safe haven location (police station, fire house, or hospital).

This didn't make much sense to me. It takes a fair amount of pressure, strife, or financial distress to bring anyone to the point where they feel there are no options other than to abandon their children. That doesn't usually occur in the first 72 hours of the child's life. Typically, they are in the hospital for most of that time. By the time they go home with their mother and the family runs out of formula, diapers, patience, or resources, it's long past that 72 hour limit. So, while the new version of the law may have saved a very few precious lives of children presumably born at home, the overall purpose of the law was, again, being overlooked.

Hearing about the special session, I blogged about it, and took it a little further, e-mailing all of the Nebraska State legislators with my personal opinion about appropriate time frames. My suggestion was 0-6 months, enough time for new parents to be overwhelmed and in a position to make such a decision. I received a number of responses, ironically (or not), mostly from the women legislators, who were very sympathetic. One senator asked me to come and speak before the special session. While I would have done that gladly had it been convenient and time-efficient, I was unable to make a commitment to do that. However, I did make sure all involved knew what the spirit of the law should be and why the time frames proposed were, in essence, preposterous.

The legislators met last Friday and, while they didn't approve what I had suggested (0-6 months of age), they did get a little more reasonable in their time frame. The end result was a safe haven law that allows parents to safely surrender their newborns up to the age of 30 days. I am not really sure how the age of the child would be determined if the identity of the child is unknown, and I do feel that the time frame still doesn't cover the need, however, they are moving in the right direction now.

So, a big Thanksgiving Thank You to those folks in Nebraska who took the time to reconvene the legislature during their off time to fix something that was broken. We are all thankful when the life of a baby(any baby) is saved. It's no small miracle and I am hopeful that, indeed, some little ones will benefit from this new law.

Safe-Haven Laws and the Nebraska Debacle

Recently, in an effort to make it easier for women who have experienced unplanned pregnancy to safely surrender a child, and perhaps reduce the number of abandoned babies left to die in dumpsters or on doorsteps, Nebraska passed a Safe-Haven law. 48 states and Puerto Rico have already adopted these Safe-Haven laws, an incentive for overwhelmed parents to leave their newborns at a hospital, police or fire station, or another designated safe place. Typically, the laws designate that an infant up to one month old may be surrendered this way without repercussions to the parents.

Nebraska lawmakers apparently didn't review the fine print in these existing laws before enacting their own "safe-haven" guidelines. The Nebraska law provided safe-haven for any child under the age of 19, rather than specifying infants. A total of 26 older children have been left at Nebraska hospitals since July. Obviously those Nebraska lawmakers are either too young or too old to have teens at home. Any of us who have shared a domicile with a 14-year-old would know better! I don't think I've met the parent of a teenager who hasn't thought (perhaps just for an instant) about abdicating their parental responsibilities a time or two. Teenagers can be a challenge. In Nebraska, this little oversight in the wording of the law has caused a fair amount of chaos as teen after teen is "dropped off" for safekeeping at hospitals. The very law that was intended to keep parents from abandoning their babies, is causing them to abandon their teens.

In one case, a man left nine of his children at a hospital in Omaha. The Department of Health and Human Services officials stated they wouldn't take any children older than age 17. That leaves some of those abandoned in limbo. Where should they go? The Nebraska Legislature has called a special session to tackle the issue on November 14, at which time a bill will be introduced establishing a 3-day-old age limit. When will they learn? Isn't that going from one extreme to another? At 3 days of age, an infant has likely just been discharged from the hospital. The parent(s) won't feel overwhelmed by caring for that infant for a few days or weeks. Why not establish a 6 month limitation? Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not the solution!

Particularly if you live in Nebraska, but even if you don't, if you feel that 72 hours is too short a period of time for a parent to feel overwhelmed and choose to surrender her child, please e-mail the author of bill LB 157 as soon as possible. Please urge 3-6 months at least as a reasonable cut-off time frame. Safe-Haven laws are absolutely necessary and will save lives, however, this one is threatening to defeat it's own purpose a second time. I have already written an e-mail to Senator Arnie Stuthman at 'astuthman@leg.ne.gov'. Please join me in letting him know that while his intentions are good, this time limit is not. It is, perhaps, wise to let the other legislators in Nebraska know this as well so that they can respond appropriately to this urgent issue. These babies deserve our help.

And by the way, inevitably obnoxious teenagers all started out as those adorable babies! Be careful what you wish for! There's a "no return" policy!

Searching for birth families

Listening to a podcast called "Journeys to Motherhood" by Barbara Winters, I smiled when I heard that a 70 year old adoptee had recently found his 90 year old birth mother. What are the odds of that? Adoptees have always searched. It's important to know who we are and we all want information about our past. Why should adoptees be any different? Background information, for adoptees, is much harder to come by. In years past, closed adoption was the norm. Getting information from closed adoption files was similar to a CIA operation. Fort Knox is less protected than some of these adoption records. In recent years, though, open adoption has become the norm and many states have opened the records. Bastard Nation -- an organization dedicated to the civil and human rights of adoptees -- has worked to change the laws state by state so that adoptees can have access to who they are and where they came from. Shouldn't everyone have access to that information? I've heard the arguments that back in the day birth mothers were promised that their records would never be unsealed. It seems to me, from the conversations I've shared with birth mothers, that most of those adoptions were sealed to keep information from the birth mothers. It wasn't necessarily the birth mother's request to have the file closed. Once upon a time, if you placed your child for adoption, your rights were severed just as totally as if you had put your arm in a wood chipper, never to be recovered. The nurse whisked away the baby after you labored to give birth and you weren't even allowed a peek at the newborn. Never mind saying goodbye. This seems like cruel and unusual punishment and the birth mother never even got a trial. It wasn't until I listened to a presentation by an adoptee who was trying to get the legislature in Tennessee to open the records that the denials by congressmen of what seemed to be reasonable requests on behalf of adoptees began to make sense. It seems logical now. Congressmen tend to be away from home a lot, either in the state capitals or the federal capital. How often do we hear about congressmen having affairs or mistresses, like the recent disclosures of John Edwards? It makes sense, then, that it would be a difficult, if not impossible, task to get the states legislatures to vote to open the records of adoptees. The adoptees get peace of mind, but what do the congressmen get? They get found out. Interesting how the whole process comes full circle.