Before I started working in the juvenile mental health world I would never have imagined empathizing with a mother who dropped off her 12 year old daughter at a hospital invoking a safe haven. After all, these laws were designed to keep desperate new mothers from feeling like they had to strangle their newborn or leave him or her to die in a dumpster. I do believe that was the intent of these laws.
Texas passed the first safe haven law in 1999. Every other state followed leaving Nebraska as the last hold-out. These laws allowed a person to leave a child at a designated location for any reason with no legal consequence. Most laws defined the age of the child, mainly infants, and also specified safe places such as fire and police stations and hospitals. Baby boxes were set up similar to the type seen around Europe. Most people would agree with the safety aspect of the safe haven laws, especially from the newborn’s perspective although many disagree with the lack of accountability for the parent. What occurred in Nebraska when they finally passed a law in 2008 created a whole new set of questions and considerations entirely. What happens when the law is broad and parents use it as a last means attempt at fixing a familial crisis and to get mental health services?
What Happened in Nebraska
According to Jennifer Trost, in her article, “From Juvenile Court to Safe Haven: The Lessons of Juvenile Justice History and the 2008 Nebraska Safe Haven Law, “In early September 2008, a steady flow of parents from different states began dropping off their children at Nebraska hospitals and driving away, with no intention of returning. The children ranged in age from 1 to 17 years, with most of the children being either preteens or teenagers.” In November 2008, in response to the drop-offs a special session was called to revise the law. Between July and this special session, 34 children were left in Nebraska hospitals and one was even “dropped off even as a hastily called special session attempted to rewrite the law.” Her article details the father of 10 who dropped off nine of his children ages 1 to 17, as well as. the mother of a 12-year-old boy who drove from Georgia to leave him at the hospital. “Families from Iowa, Michigan, and California transported their children to Nebraska,” Trost writes. Her research-based facts make professionals wonder about the use of the law. “Of the first 30 children left at hospitals, 27 had received prior mental health treatment, 28 came from single-parent homes, and 22 had a parent or guardian who had been jailed.” She furthers that there are two major themes for those families using the law: “Many had serious mental health needs, and many of the children were preteens.” The unintended consequence of this open-aged law was families who felt they had nowhere else to turn for help turned to the relief offered in this law.
Safe Haven Laws and Juvenile Justice
Trost hypothesizes that several factors led to what happened in Nebraska. One of which was the cyclical nature of the juvenile justice system. Since its inception the juvenile justice system has had cycles of being punishment-focused on one side and treatment-focused on the other. The Nebraska safe haven law existed in the aftermath of the 1990s “super-predator” juvenile justice theory. Families with children who had behavioral issues mostly related to their mental health issues were hesitant to petition the juvenile court for assistance. They didn’t want to see their children treated as adults and punished. They wanted them to get treatment. Unfortunately, child welfare and social services did not provide relief either. Although, many professionals argued that the services these families utilizing the safe haven law stated were unattainable were in fact attainable if the family had chosen to seek them out. Working in the mental health system myself, I have to agree with Trost’s tone that these arguments were not based in reality.
Back to the Beginning
Trost’s historical perspective of juvenile court specifically, the juvenile justice system in general reminds professionals that the haven in which the individuals in Nebraska was seeking actually used to be provided by the court. She explains, “Indeed, juvenile courts have not always been places to avoid, and parents used them as a part of managing family crisis. In 1899, the founders of juvenile courts envisioned it as a safe haven, providing safety from the streets, adult jails, and neglectful or abusive households. Court case files show that historically for many parents and children, juvenile court was a place of first resort, and for the very reasons Nebraska families say they sought out safe havens: Emergency shelter, crisis intervention, day care, and family counseling.” Nowadays, it is argued, we have social services and child welfare to meet these needs. But as we’ve seen, all of these services cannot exist within a vacuum. Many jurisdictions are convening task forces that include these services, as well as, juvenile justice to bring a comprehensive solution to families in need of help. It’s become readily apparent that many children in the juvenile justice system, who are brought before a judge, are really in need of mental health services rather than punishment.
What we’ve learned from Nebraska’s safe haven law is that we need to be unified in providing services to families, the juvenile justice system needs to be more treatment-focused and that citizens can be very creative when it comes to interpreting programs designed by legislature to help them. Working together, professionals can bring the benefits of juvenile justice’s history and merge them with the social services available today. Together, we can offer the assistance that many desperate families need. Not just for those with infants but those with older children as well.
Michelle Perin
Michelle Perin has been a freelance writer since 2000. In December 2010, she earned her Master’s degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Indiana State University.
