Home  ·   News  ·   Weather  ·   Sports  ·   Jobs  ·   Community  ·   Pics N Videos  ·   Station  ·   Marketplace  ·   6 on Your Side  ·   Contests  ·   Get Connected  ·   Blogs
Health Check · Lottery · DTV · Seasonal · Mom to Mom · Traffic · The Omaha Buzz · CityCAMS · My Weather · School Closings · HS Cribs · Restaurants · McKnight Investigates
WOWT.com on Demand
6 On Your Cell
News, Sports & Weather
Information On Your Cell
Text ALERTS
Breaking News Alerts
Direct to Your Cell Phone
Daily e-News
News & Weather Updates
delivered via email
You Cast
Submit Your Pics
and Video
What's on 6
Your Guide to NBC
& WOWT Programming
Heineman Signs New Safe Haven Law Save Email Print
Posted: 9:18 AM Nov 21, 2008
 Last Updated: 5:46 PM Nov 21, 2008
 Reporter: Associated Press
Email Address: sixonline@wowt.com
43 comments
A | A | A

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman has signed a new safe haven law, limiting the age limit to children 30 days old or less. The new law will take effect at 12:01 a.m. November 22nd.

Nebraska lawmakers gave final approval to the bill Friday morning. The old law had been used to abandon 35 children at state hospitals since July; many of them pre-teens or teenagers as old as 17.

The old law was meant to prevent newborns from being dumped in trash bins or worse. But it was the only one in the country that lacked an age limit. Five of the children abandoned have been from other states, including from as far away as Florida and Michigan.
More Stories
Armed Robbery in Car

Shooting Victim Found Near Ralston High School

Murder Suspect Arrested At Boys Town

Lawmakers to Consider Red Light Cameras

 High Court Refuses to Hear Custody Case

Infant Seriously Hurt, Father Arrested

More Medicine Monitoring in Iowa

Shooting Victim May Face Charges
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Michelle on Nov 24, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I think the legislature has missed the boat...again! The statistics for Shaken baby Syndrome should have been taken in to consideration. Thirty days is not the magic number. This solves nothing.
Posted by: AB on Nov 23, 2008 at 11:26 PM
We have some seriously air headed people in Nebraska now don't we? First we have those (If you don't want kids don't have them) types who think that it's just that darned simple. Obviously people aren't that smart (you fit the bill by the way) don't have so much faith in the common sense of the human race. It does not exist. Then we have these (30 days is well enough time) types who probably force themselves to believe that all those poor 2 mo-4 year old children who have been killed or abused by their caretakers were all fiction stories. Look at the lists, all of those innocent faces we will never see again. Then come back to the real world. You people should be sickened by your anger over a law that is meant to protect all of those precious little people. 30 days is not enough, it's obvious. And you people are hopeless and heartless. Nothing short of a burden on our world. Tony and Margie people like you aren't even worth it.
Posted by: LLR on Nov 23, 2008 at 08:38 PM
I am very happy with the 30-days age limit. The 3-day limit was too short. And the old "law" was just an excuse to drop off problem teens. None of which would exists if you could spank kids these days, or ground them, or at least stand up to them. They think they have a ton of RIGHTS? Not while you're raising them, they're under your roof and you are buying all their clothes and food. They want rights, let them sue for "emancipation" and go live on their own. And for the record, I'm pretty sure no child under the age of FIVE was left under Nebraska's "old" law. Nice to see the last kid dumped from California barely made it over the state line, Friday.
Posted by: To Tony and Margie on Nov 23, 2008 at 06:17 PM
So basically your saying your not worried about abused kids-and as far as putting our addresses on the boards-how do you know the "worried" posters aren't already foster parents? Obviously you have never witnessed first hand an infant who has been shaken- Now, I would rather see a child in foster care because the parent(s) figured out they can't care for the infant-then at a hospital or long term care facility because that same infant will NEVER function normally again with basics such as eating, walking, playing. Pretty much they are in a vegetative state for the rest of their lives. Am I worried, of course because of people like you who don't seem to care about the life of a child.
Posted by: Chris on Nov 23, 2008 at 10:00 AM
That's right, the Safe Haven Law was intended to protect babies and infants. Yet it uncovered some substantial problems with teenage behavior--even our lack of ability to protect parents from their teenagers. Those of you laughing: that's not a joke. Just consider the case of the MOTHER going to jail for biting her daughter while her larger DAUGHTER beat up on her. So, now we've "fixed" the law, at the expense of many families needing help. If you ignore a problem--especially by legislating it out of the public eye--you don't have to deal with it. This is a first step in creating a perfect society. Even if some in our perfect society are suffering, we can ignore them with a clean conscience.
Posted by: Chris on Nov 22, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Um, yeah, JLS. How many dealers have let you test drive a car for up to a year? Implausible analogies destroy your argument. The fact is, many teens think having a baby is going to be fun. It's not a test drive, and comparing a baby to a car is ignorant and offensive. The first thirty days are still the "honeymoon" period, where the dream of fun and attention is still alive. Yet, you give a list of logical reasons women shouldn't have children (even though society has established it's the woman's choice). Your biggest mistake is assuming teens think logically. I know you don't remember being that way, with raging hormones, etc., but you surely notice it in teens now that you're past that stage.
Posted by: Anna on Nov 22, 2008 at 09:52 AM
I think the age limit should have been up to 1 yr. While I don't condone parents just abadoning their kids because they can't hack it or they cramp their style, I would rather not see a child abused. And I agree, stop & think about the consequences before having sex! Now the state needs to really find a solution to helping these troubled teens! It's a huge problem and our system is very flawed when it comes to helping all children/teens! It truly does take a village to raise a kid!
Posted by: anonymous on Nov 22, 2008 at 08:30 AM
I'm glad they changed it. This has been a sickening display of abusing the spirit of the law by irresponsible parents. I know for a fact that there is plenty of help for older children. I've watched as a neighbor has totally abused and blamed the system with her kids. One 14 year old got caught stealing three times. Within days her kid had the opportunity to be in two rehab like facilities. both times the mother yanked her out because she felt the kid wasn't being punished enough (one was a boy's town facility), then proceeded to blame the facilities for not helping her child. What really happened was that she was going to lose her welfare Also, she's been given a free family therapist, but because she's LAZY, she doesn't take the kid or herself. Again, she blames the system for not giving her the kind of help she wants. Now, she's disappointed that she didn't just drop her kid off while she could. I'm certain that this is the case in many of those abandoned teenager's lives
Posted by: Joe on Nov 22, 2008 at 06:03 AM
Instead of concentrating on unemployment, decreasing taxes, helping the homeless and poor, Heineman and the Republicans running this state concentrate on stopping the poor that are bringing there kids in for help because they can't help them anymore. The fact that a Democrat won the 2nd District Presidential race (Omaha), does show there is hope for Nebraska, though, for future elections.
Posted by: Tony and Margie on Nov 22, 2008 at 04:22 AM
Post your address so these poor parents can drop their(and soon to be your) kids off if you're that worried. Come on, we're all waiting....
Posted by: Jennifer on Nov 22, 2008 at 01:14 AM
Thirty days is a good start, however I think one year would have been better, but beggers can't be choosers. There are places to go with your children in hard times or when your in deep trouble and can't seem to get out. The state is there to help, there is also Boys Town, group homes, adoption agencies, and yes even family that can help. I believe if someone has a child don't give up there's always light at the end of tunnel.
Posted by: Kate on Nov 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Oh My Gosh! This is soooooooooooooooooo stupid! I hope that parents who have children that really, REALLY need help go and leave their children legally while they can. What a stupid govenor we have in the HUSKERLAND!!!!
Posted by: paul on Nov 21, 2008 at 06:26 PM
i know we cant,.. but every senator who voted for this law the way it was written?...should be fired...
Posted by: Geez people on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:39 PM
At first NE is frowned upon because we don't have an age limit for the safe haven, now people are complaining that the age limit isn't old enough. Get a life people! It's like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Go get a hobby and stop complaining.
Posted by: Anonymous on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:37 PM
30 days is plenty. If you don't want kids, take precautions and don't have them. It's simple.
Posted by: J from Bennington on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:37 PM
I think Tony's point was the 4 month old child that Jacob Weesner "dropped off a bed" 6 times - but that was in Council Bluffs. I don't recall a 2 month old in the news that Safe Haven would have helped. How many "shaken baby syndrome" babies do you see under 30 days? I agree with the 1 year limit - better that than brain damaged. I'm hoping that Nebraska does implement a "Safe Harbor" bill, where the parents with uncontrollable children can get the help they need, without the wait times that the current system now imposes. (Please don't start with how parents should have raised them correctly from the beginning; in many of these cases the guardians haven't been there from the beginning, or the child has a mental disorder that behavior modification cannot control.)
Posted by: Larry on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Ne Legistors now need to refine it and very ninimum, require insurance co's, etc., to include mental health, brain trama, retardation, and brain underdevelopement isuues (such as Disorders of the Corpus Callosum (often misdiagnosed as ADD, ADHD, Aspbergers) but exhibit characteristis similat to Autism Spectrum Disorders, PDD, PDD-NOS, and severe behavior disorders, to be covered and without any pre-existing condition exclusions. Proper diagnosis and treatment depends on funds and laws available, such as under Special Ed., etc. and of course the lawyers who help Insurance co's and fight parents and Professionals trying to get help-particularly all these kids that are being LEFT BEHIND-even with the NCLB laws etc. Time to step up to the plate, stop the new ball stadium and save our kids and our city/state. Kids are not helped by short stays at Psych Wards etc. when parent(s), caregivers etc. cannot cope with some of these problems that apparently, even Professionals can't fix! DBT
Posted by: JLS on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:24 PM
Folks, the safe haven laws are not "test drive" periods. You don't bring a life into the world, take it for a 30 day to one year test drive to see if you like being a parent, like you do with a new car. You can't just turn it over to the state without fear of reprisal if you decide for whatever reason you don't like the kid, can't raise the kid, or just don't like the way the kid cramps your style.
Posted by: Danielle on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:22 PM
We are more concerned about the financial aspect of this than we are about the welfare of the children. A child who is being neglected or abused is better being abandoned at a hospital where they can be placed in a loving, safe home than continue to live in the abusive home. I think this is ridiculous and our lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves...we should look out for the best interest of the children not the state not wanting to spend the money to HELP these children. If we don't help them now, chances are they'll end up in the system later which will cost the same if not more money. I wish they would look at the big picture.
Posted by: Ryan on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:15 PM
What is wrong with you people? Safe Haven laws are designed to protect human life. They are not, I repeat, NOT a "return" policy. If you can't raise the child, then (1) don't have them, or (2) give them to a family who desperately wants children. It's no wonder some species eat their young. They don't want them acting like humans!
Posted by: Jim on Nov 21, 2008 at 02:08 PM
You people make me sick! It is not okay, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, to abandon a child of ANY age. If you don't think you can raise a child, then DON'T have one. You don't see other species in the animal kingdom abandon their off-spring WITHOUT FEAR OF PUNISHMENT! Make you wonder just how in the hell humans made it to the top of the food chain.
Posted by: JF on Nov 21, 2008 at 01:49 PM
It's about time. This should always have been about INFANT safe haven. Problem children of older ages are a different issue. Hmm, I noticed that three of our wonderful legislators were opposed to this. I wonder which three they are?
Posted by: RRS on Nov 21, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Hey K.M. I saw the reference made on ER last night too. And although I am not an Omahan I have to admit I was still a bit offended as well. I agree that the new law should have covered babies up to 1 yr old. I remember being an overwhelmed new mom and can't imagine having to do it alone or as a teen that had gotten myself stupid self into a bad situation. Shaken infant syndrome happens most often to babies 2-6 months old! None of the 35 kids left on NE's doorstep were below the age of 1, but aren't those babies the ones who are the MOST vulnerable and in need of the most protection? Most new mothers don't have a clue what they're in for until the baby is at least 2 months old! I'm a little worried about the whole thing.
Posted by: DJ on Nov 21, 2008 at 01:42 PM
I think that this is a step in the right direction - I agree that 30 days isn't a great deal of time but hopefully this is just a stop gap in the process and that this can be placed up for review again to see if there is warrant to extend the age limit to a one year old. Hopefully there will be something in the next legislative session that will address the needs of families with older children.
Posted by: Becky on Nov 21, 2008 at 01:36 PM
For everyone who is is now mad about the 30 day law think of it this way...you don't want the responsibility of a baby then dont have SEX!! Everyone individual who has sex understands that you may end up pregnant...if you are not prepared to be pregnant...CLOSE YOUR LEGS! Instead of having a baby and abandoning it.
Posted by: Kris on Nov 21, 2008 at 01:29 PM
RM made such a fantastic point. All kids being dropped off under the "old" safe haven were not even who it was intended to help! There was not one baby under 30 days old ever dropped off, not that I heard of anyway! That should say something right there!
Posted by: It is a mistake on Nov 21, 2008 at 01:21 PM
The age limit should be 1 year. I have seen many abused infants, fractures, shaken, and neglected and guess what-they were all over 1 month in age. If the age limit was a year, perhaps some of the abused infants could be dropped off PRIOR to the abuse. Many of you worry that we look stupid as a State, but I think that with the Safe Haven law the way it was made us a great State that obviously cared about our youth. Shame on the legislatures and the citizens of Nebraska-it is the infants and children older than 1 month that needs the help.
Posted by: CM on Nov 21, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Nebraska just went from one extreme to the next. 30 days is not enough. It frustrates me that the nation has heard a loud cry for help from struggling families and Nebraska is helping to muffle the cries and sweep the problem under the rug. 'Don't wait until it's a crisis. Reach out to your family and friends.' That is the brilliant advice being given families who have been unable to find help. Sad...very sad.
Posted by: GM on Nov 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM
30day's old. Personally I think they should have went 1yr old, Give the mother a little time to see if she will be able to raise A child or not. A 1yr old I don't think know's if he is on foot or horse back yet.
Posted by: Proud To Be Mexican on Nov 21, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Hey Nebraska welcome back to the 21st Century and moving foward with everyone else.
Posted by: RM on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:56 AM
If the legislators had done there job in the first place and not voted for a poorly written law a special session would not have been needed. I haven't noticed any new borns or two month olds being dropped off at all.
Posted by: Re Tony on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Very few "dumpster babies" 2 months old. Most are within a week of birth.
Posted by: Sad on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:28 AM
It is so unfortunate that the lawmakers limited the age to 30 days. I would have much rather seen the age limit at 1 year. Too many babies are abused, neglected, skaken between the ages of 2 months-1 year. I guess all those who were complaining of "footing the bill" for the children dropped off-can complain about the larger bill they will have to "foot" when these babies are shaken, abused, neglected-admitted to the hospital, court costs for prosecuting the parent(s), and foster care-Hospital stays are not cheap and in the long run, it will cost more. Very disappointed with many citizens in Omaha/Nebraska for caring more about the cost then the life of a child (regardless of age), and shame on the lawmakers for not doing extensive research and limiting the age.
Posted by: Margie on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I agree with Tony, what about 2-6 month old babies? What is it with these parents--if you don't want the babies, then put them out for adoption and keep your pants on!!
Posted by: Quit Whining Tony on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Good, now bad parents from other states will have to dump their thug teens somewhere else! Quit whining, Tony, the regular session starts on Jan. 7, 2009, and the social services thing will be near the top of the list.
Posted by: K.M. on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Did anyone happen to watch ER last night? They made a Safe Haven joke about Omaha...how sad is that?? But I agree with Tony...what about the older babies? I think it should have covered babies through a year old. Will this state ever get it right?
Posted by: Susan on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Tony- it is never ever okay to leave a baby of any age in the garbage. We don't need lesgislation written to tell us that.
Posted by: Steve on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Hey Tony.....if you're worried about dropping off that 2 month old baby, then I guess there's 2 problems with you. First, you have THIRTY DAYS to figure it out. Second, if you're that concerned about it in the first place, then you have NO BUSINESS HAVING KIDS AT ALL ! ! !
Posted by: guess on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I think there shouldnt be an age limit i would rather have a parent drop a kid off, rather then putting them on the street, or continue to abuse them. I wouldnt mind my tax dollars paying to take care of a child in need, instead of this stupid bridge or stadium, or whatever else stupid they come up with us to pay for!
Posted by: cece on Nov 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Changing the age limit does not mean that it is ok to drop a two month old in the garbage. It means that the mother or father of that two month old must either take on the task of raising that child or (in many cases a much better option) put the child up for adoption. Nebraksa did not make a huge mistake. This is a sound decision.
Posted by: Tony on Nov 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM
That's too bad, Nebraska just made a huge mistake. What about that two month old baby, I guess it's OK to drop her in the garbage, Nebraska did have the best safe haven law in the nation, thanks Heineman, we will remember this on your next election bid.
Posted by: Emily on Nov 21, 2008 at 09:36 AM
Thank you to all the legislators who met to set an age limit on the Safe Haven law. The State of Nebraska thanks you.
Posted by: Dani on Nov 21, 2008 at 09:24 AM
I'm curious to see how many kids are dropped off between now and 12:01 AM....it'll be interesting.
AP Online Network
YOU CAST - YOUR PICS N VIDEOS
Media Partners
 
Home - News - Weather - Sports - Jobs - Community - Pics N Videos - Station - Marketplace - 6 on Your Side - Contests - Get Connected - Blogs -
Health Check - Lottery - DTV - Seasonal - Mom to Mom - Traffic - The Omaha Buzz - CityCAMS - My Weather - School Closings - HS Cribs - Restaurants - McKnight Investigates -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - EEO Statement - FCC Form 388
Gray Television, Inc. - Copyright © 2002-2009 - Designed and Powered by Clickability