There has been quite a bit of buzz recently about Nebraska’s safe haven laws, intended to give a safe place for distraught mothers to drop off their unwanted infants. These laws are gaining in popularity as people are increasingly horrified at the occasional stories of infants left to die in dumpsters or other unseemly places, but we here in Nebraska were unique in not identifying an age-limit.
So a lot of children were dropped off who didn’t fit the “newborn” status that lawmakers had intended. Like the nine children aged one to seventeen dropped off by a man who lost his wife a year previously. Or even the eighteen year old who turned himself in to a hospital. We’ve even had some come from other states to absolve themselves of their parenting duties, prompting children and family services director for Health and Human Services, Todd Landry, to quip,
“This is not what we intended when we said we wanted to increase Nebraska tourism.” Omaha World Herald
So the governor called a special session of the legislature to try to hammer down an age-limit. Senator Ernie Chambers apparently attempted a one-man filibuster, something he is rather notorious for around here. And yes, that would be the Senator Chambers who sued God, a lawsuit he is apparently considering pursuing even though it was thrown out of court.
The whole situation is upsetting, but I think we may be asking the wrong questions from all sides of the debate. Many are looking at these parents and wondering “What kind of parent…” But I wonder why the shock and judgment is saved for those who abandon teenagers. And as much as it pains me to think what it must be like for those children to be dropped off at an area hospital, I cannot help but wonder what life was like at home with parents who were, for whatever reason, in a situation they no longer felt they could handle.
And what might have happened if they were forced to continue without some sort of support.
Julie of Shanan Trail makes an interesting point in Why Homeschool’s comment box:
When I read the stories of these teenagers (most of whom were dropped off because of behavioral problems — I know at least one has fetal alcohol syndrome) my heart breaks. I think it is terrible for a parent to walk out on their struggling kids. But, the tale is no less sad or tragic when it happens to an infant. Because here is the truth… that infant is going to become an adult adoptee. No one should have their story be that their mother dropped them of anonymously at a hospital somewhere and walked away. And, for the mother… abandonment is a permanent solution to a problem that may well have other solutions. She may be able to parent the child herself and just need help in finding resources. She may feel she needs to place the child for adoption. When a mother places a child for adoption, she is supposed to receive counseling and support. She may opt to create an adoption plan that allows her to have continued contact with a child. For sure the adoptee will have access to more information about his or her past.
I am not sure what I think about safe haven laws in general, but I do think that we are looking at the wrong thing when we begin to focus on the age-limit. Regardless of the age, we are talking about families in crisis that are in need of intensive support. And safe haven laws may not work to save the babies they are directed at, anyway.
Sen. DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln cited studies in states with safe haven laws showing that, after passage of the law, as many infants have been left to die as have been left in safe havens. Omaha World Herald
Murder cannot be prevented by simply providing “another way out.” There have always been choices other than murder. I doubt it can be solved by throwing more money at it, or by lessening the stigma associated with teen pregnancy as Senator Chambers desires.
I wish I had a neat little packaged answer, but I fear in this area we are going to be governed by a principle laid out pretty clearly by Senator Arnie Stuthman,
“I felt I was sacrificing, but I thought if we could save just one baby, it would be worth it,” he said. “I think people felt they did not want to see another youngster dropped off in a Dumpster.” Ibid.
If we could save just one baby…
In exchange we leave families in crisis situations to walk away from their children without any of the underlying problems addressed. Families which might have been preserved if our state focused on helping families identify community resources set up to provide support, counseling, respite or whatever other needs these families have. And families which will continue to struggle because you may be able to physically walk away from your child, but the emotional and spiritual toll of such an act cannot so simply be dropped off at your local hospital.
Of the 35 children dropped off since the law was passed, not one was an infant. But I think perhaps we prefer to simply change the law and pretend that those other families were anomalies rather than a warning of some serious social problems affecting families today.
Hat Tip: NCCPR
Good job of research. Thanks for the informative post.
I agree with you 100%. There are so many issues going on here that need addressed. And no matter the age of the child, abandonment leaves permanent scars.
Dana, Thank you for addressing this issue. This is National Adoption Month. Since relinquished children often become available for adoption, I think your entry is quite timely. Adoption is bigger than a family taking home a forever baby. Children in need come in all ages, races and developmental levels. Some will have severe mental illness. Adoption permanently severs the relationship of a child with his or her biological mother. Even when this occurs as an infant the child becomes an adult with unanswered questions and unresolved feelings of inadequacy. Some adult adoptees seem to absorb this and fit their life story into a their own world view in a way that is healthy; they feel whole. Other adult adoptees never do.
As you probably know, our family has been in crisis with Marissa this year. Unless they have lived with an out of control teen, I don’t think most people know how much stress a teenager with mental illness, a history of neglect and a developmental disability can put on the family. I love Marissa, but her behavior has tried my patience, tested our finances and caused a lot of lost sleep, tearful nights and physical symptoms related to anxiety. I was able to find help, but not until Marissa needed to be hospitalized on a locked psychiatric unit on a medical-legal hold. I was given support under Minnesota’s Adoption Support laws. A family in my exact situation with biological children wouldn’t have received services. And, Marissa’s services (like our insurance coverage) end when she turns 18 in just 15 months.
Even before Nebraska’s Safe Haven laws made this problem an issue open for everyone to read about, parents were relinquishing their parental rights in order to get the help their children need. The state issued orders of protection and identified the child as a child in need of services. Parents lose their rights to make decisions for their kids. In many cases they lose their ability to have contact with their children. It has been happening all along, just not making it into the paper. Even in the case where a normal teen is rebelling against authority, I doubt removing their parents from their life is a good idea. That is exactly what they wanted anyway.
I don’t blame the parents in these cases for what they did… I don’t have a neat easy answer either… but I do think it has been good to open dialogue about what else might be done to help families in crisis. Sadly, Nebraska will change their law and we will all go back to living in our dream world, a world where love is enough to fix a family history of mental illness, severe neglect and atypical neurodevelopment.
My own objection to Safe Haven laws are related to my belief that open record adoption (in which an adult adoptee has access to his or her original, unredacted birth certificate) should be the ethical standard for all adoptions. And, whenever possible, open adoptions (in which the child knows their family of origin) should be the norm. I am angered by the Christian communities support of closed adoptions because of a fear that women will choose to abort a child if they are not guaranteed anonymity. The truth is that closed record adoptions were the norm before abortion became legal in this country. Women had the option of a closed adoption, walking away with no trace, and some women still wanted to be able to make the decision to abort. Abortion and adoption are separate issues and policies and laws should treat them as such.
Two cases really bothered me when I worked with the system and I realized how little there was between “on your own” and the state taking custody of your kids. Both needed help and one definitely necessitated removal for a time. But the one just needed help. Single mom, recently abandoned by spouse with several children working two jobs and she loses her kids because of sanitation issues? Couldn’t something else have been tried first?
When you contact the state for help, I think that should separate you from the abusers who are keeping their kids out of school for days at a time so bruises, scars, etc. have time to heal. And when you say you are ready to get your children back, you shouldn’t have fifteen more months of proving that you are. You already proved a willingness to look for help when you needed it. But once you get your kids back, services pretty much stop as well.
Sure, you probably have the food stamps and a housing allowance, but you probably had that before. And child abuse does not know economic limitations.
Another interesting point…In one of the articles I read last night, a hospital worker said that for every child left there was a family who showed up at the hospital and changed their minds, returning home with their children.
And I wonder how many have heard of the law and broken down as they realized how much they wanted to do the very same thing.
Something is more seriously wrong here than just the age-limit.
Dana,
I have been wondering your take on this law. Thank you for taking the time to research this and share your opinion.
Families are in crisis, and I, too, wish there was a simple solution. Even when my husband worked for social services trying to bring families back together, abuse still took place.
It breaks my heart to think about it, and makes me realize how important it is for us to be involved with those who ask for help.
And I’m wondering if part of the problem is thinking that we need to leave giving counsel to experts? There are issues in my own family I don’t really have the answer for, but sometimes just talking to the parent helps them get perspective.
[Couldn’t something else have been tried first?] Yes, but only if we are willing to accept that helping single moms is something that can and should be done. I receive adoption support for caring for Marissa. The state of Minnesota is picking up health care costs that are not covered by our own insurance. My Dad retired from the military at 45 and received a retirement check for the remainder of his life. He was entitled to free care at military hospitals and he was insured through TriCare for care at civilian hospitals. My father-in-law gets money from the government’s farm program. All of these government subsidies are “handouts.” But, when it comes to caring for a single mom, we all judge their lifestyle and find them unworthy of help.
In the example you gave of the mother, two jobs and a messy house, I have learned from parenting Marissa that some people will never, ever be able to keep their home organized and clean without help of another human. Marissa is not lazy. She just cannot look at the mess and know how to clean it without being given directions. She doesn’t need a class; she needs a real-life relationship with someone who will help her. I would way rather this kind of help come family and community than the government. But, I stopped living in my fairy tale perfect world a long time ago. Some people just don’t have help from community. Some people are so dysfunctional that they have burned out their support system. Their family and friend have set up barriers to protect themselves emotionally and financially. It would be cheaper to help this mom than pay to have several children in foster care. It would be better for the children too. But for some reason we are all willing to pay one expense and balk at the other.
I think it should ideally come from community, too. And we do have some excellent programs, but they can only reach those willing to ask or who know where to find them. And they are limited in how many they can handle. Maybe it is because I’m pregnant, but I was moved to tears by the testimony of a woman touched by one of the city ministries our church supports. She came for the free stuff for her kids and kept coming and learned to take responsibility while being given financial and emotional support. They’re moving out of government housing and off welfare into their first apartment and you could just see how excited she and her kids were.
Government programs cannot do that. We need people, like those who volunteer to be friends to adults with disabilities or take on other roles normally taken on by families who just aren’t in the picture in a lot of these situations. But if it isn’t forthcoming?
But simply removing programs will not make the private sector suddenly come up with solutions. The government moved in to a lot of these situations because serious problems were not being handled. But we are spending a great deal of money on existing programs which aren’t working. It would be nice by taking a closer look at how that could be better spent, how we can truly protect children and how we can preserve families as often as possible.
That Landry is annoying. He is quoted throughout these articles, and always seems completely insensitive, even making inappropriate jokes about attracting tourism. That is the attitude of HHS around here. The parent (and the foster parent, for that matter) is the enemy.
And we take away a lot of kids. More than most states and that is right here in America’s heartland.
The real (heart) issues are so much more important. You are absolutely right. And this is also why coming up with a response to this is so difficult: We’re dealing with fundamental questions of really helping, encouraging, and changing people’s lives. And we don’t know how to do that.
~Luke
I totally agree with this. What is a parent to do if doctors won’t help, and there are no resources? Child mental health is a woefully understaffed specialty. Waits can be 6 mos- 1 year just for an initial evaluation, and many pediatric psych doctors do not accept insurance (they don’t HAVE to, there are no shortage of desperate clients willing to pay cash).
Instead of thinking the law is “broken”, it is the families who are “broken”. Who’s helping them? Where is the support when the school calls Mom away from work, jeopardizing her job, because Junior is out of control, again? Who’s supporting Dad when the daughter’s prescription causes hallucination and induces mania?
It is well nigh impossible to find any sort of child care if your child has emotional problems. There is no help. There is no respite. No wonder the parents have reached the breaking point.
my husband and i are looking to adopt a newborn baby, wonder what all is required we are not picky about race etc….we just want a newborn baby! any advice!
This is such a difficult topic. Thanks for having the courage to hold the discussion. Thank you, also, for submitting this for THE BLOG CARNIVAL AGAINST CHILD ABUSE. I’ve included this post in our holiday edition, which is now up at my blog. I hope you will enter more thought-provoking posts to the carnival in the future.