Omaha court case widens from screening test to baby’s meals…
Posted on | October 25, 2007 | 12 Comments
This happened while I was on vacation…Omaha court case widens from screening test to baby’s meals…
A judge ordered that 6-week-old Joel Anaya, whose hungry cries interrupted Friday’s court hearing, be administered the state-mandated newborn screening test his parents object to and remain in foster care until the test results are received, despite the mother’s wishes to continue nursing the boy.
The baby is back with the mother now Blood test done on Omaha baby, but fight isn’t over
Despite the objections of Josue Anaya and his wife, Mary, Joel’s blood was drawn Friday and screened for medical conditions, as required by state law. The tests screen for a variety of conditions, including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease, which could lead to mental retardation or death.
Joel had been in state custody since Oct. 10 when a petition was filed in Douglas County Juvenile Court alleging the Anayas put their son at risk by not having him screened.
Following a court order, Joel remained in foster care until the preliminary test results were received Tuesday and showed the baby was not predisposed to any of the disorders, the Anayas’ attorney said. The Anayas then were reunited with their son, and prosecutors dismissed the case.
Joel’s parents say they object to the blood withdrawal because of their religious beliefs and conscience. They believe in certain Scriptures that say life is in the blood.
Joel Anaya, 6 weeks old, is cuddled by his mother, Mary, who is also holding Justus, 23 months. Patting Joel’s face is Rosa, 4. James, 8, is at left. Juda, 10, is at right. The family reunion also included father Josue and the five other children.
Attorney Jeff Downing, who represents the Anayas, said it was appalling that Joel’s blood was drawn before the Anayas had an opportunity to appeal the judge’s decision.“We can’t undo what was done,” Downing said. “But from a legal standpoint, we have a right to appeal.”
They are considering filing an appeal, either in Douglas County District Court or the Nebraska Court of Appeals, he said.
Judge Elizabeth Crnkovich was not looking out for the child’s best interests in Friday’s court hearing, Downing said, criticizing her comment that it was inappropriate to allow Mary Anaya the frequent visits needed to breastfeed Joel at every meal.
Not allowing Mary Anaya to consistently breastfeed Joel during the critical first few weeks of attachment put him at greater risk than the chance that he had one of the diseases being screened for, Downing said.
She was allowed some visits and was able to nurse the baby during those times.
Thank you Eva A. and Sora for the story…
this from the mother: “Even though the social workers wrote us a glowing report recommending immediate reunification and they have already done the blood test, the judge refused to return custody until the test results are in. The judge recommended to the social workers that I only be allowed to visit 3-4 times during the day. She was angry that the first day I had been allowed to nurse 9 times. She said no night visits. Joel had never received a bottle before her ruling on Friday. I can not begin to explain the judge’s cruelty.”
It’s hard to know what to say, but it seems clear that we should all speak out so that this will not happen again.
Love,
Heather
Comments
12 Responses to “Omaha court case widens from screening test to baby’s meals…”
October 26th, 2007 @ 6:48 am
That is crazy! Seriously it was upsetting to the judge that a nursing mother actually had to nurse her baby? The baby was fine, so why the hell did they not allow the mom to nurse even if the baby “had” to be in a foster home for a week? It was like they just did it to be mean to a family who held different beliefs then them. Christ!
heather in tucson
October 26th, 2007 @ 6:56 am
totally appalling… where do we write?
October 26th, 2007 @ 7:08 am
Just saw the cartoon. Yesterday I wanted to ask the same thing about the midwife… is this America or what, and then I thought, no I won’t write that because I have come to realize that America is nothing like our imagination thinks it is supposed to be. I think it’s time to claim some democracy and revolution. Like a peaceful revolution. I would rather move to another country than have anyone put my family at risk. We shouldn’t have to move to get rights we should already have.
October 26th, 2007 @ 8:04 am
I am appalled by this. I live in Iowa, right on the border of Nebraska. We thought of buying a house on the other side of the river a while back and a friend (who works in law) told us to stay out of Nebraska- their laws (and taxes, and school districts, etc) are a mess.
I cannot find a way to contact the judge directly (go figure) but this is the info for the Nebraska courts, so it may get to her supervisor?
Administrative Office of the Courts
1445 K Street
1213 State Capitol
P. O. Box 98910
Lincoln, NE 68509-8910
Phone: 402-471-3730
Fax: 402-471-2197
Let’s flood them with letters for the immediate removal of the judge and for the courts apology to the family. FYI: the family apparently fought this battle with their last child, but lost- however, the baby was in their home the entire time. What good does it do to take the baby out of the home while the test is being processed? Like they will magically mess up the lab results by having the baby in the house? Not that taking the blood to begin with was a great idea- but this is just too far beyond what we should accept in our country.
October 26th, 2007 @ 10:23 am
These things seem to be happpening with increasing frequency, that a parent’s informed decision is being over ridden by government. It’s a very scary direction, in my opinion, and as a very pregnant and already sensitive mom, it fills me with paranoia.
October 26th, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
What a nut (the judge, of course!). That is just wrong on so many levels!
October 26th, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
The Anaya family has been trying to get Nebraska’s law changed for years. The Nebraska Senate Health and Human Services Committee is the place to write to make sure this doesn’t happen again (though that won’t give the anti-breastfeeding judge the comeuppance she so richly deserves.)
Mary Anaya has provided this sample letter to the Senators, with permission to use it and pass it on. It will, of course, be more effective if it is personalized before you send it.
You have my permission to use this letter and pass it on to others. Please make sure you sign your name and personalize it some.
Dear State Senator,
I am horrified at what has happened to the Anaya family as a result of the failure of the health and human services committee to move forward on LB 250 to provide a religious exemption to newborn screening. 46 other states have exemptions. There is no reason why Nebraska should waste tax payer money prosecuting loving parents who do not wish to participate in newborn screening. This family has suffered enough.
Please pass LB 250 or better yet make an exemption for people with religious or philosophical objections to newborn screening. This issue will not go away. In all the other states that offer exemptions, I have never seen it reported that a family refused testing and their child later had one of the diseases. Do not let this family or others suffer needlessly. The freedom to exercise religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment and in Nebraska people are supposed to have the right to conscience. The current screening laws are unconstitutional on both the federal and state level.
People will not want to live in Nebraska with all the bad publicity it receives for laws that are out of step with the nation.
_____________________________________________________________
Health and Human Services Committee
ghoward@leg.ne.gov;
thansen@leg.ne.gov;
perdman@leg.ne.gov;
jjohnson@leg.ne.gov;
astuthman@leg.ne.gov;
tgay@leg.ne.gov;
dpankonin@leg.ne.gov
Chairperson:
Sen. Joel T. Johnson
Vice Chairperson:
Sen. Tim Gay
Members:
* Sen. Philip Erdman
* Sen. Tom Hansen
* Sen. Gwen Howard
* Sen. Dave Pankonin
* Sen. Arnie Stuthman
Phone: (402) 471-2726
October 26th, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Found what appears to be an email address for the judge named in the article.
ecrnkovi@co.douglas.ne.us
She really does sound – from the article – plain cruel. Forget the facts of the decision to draw the blood gainst the parents wishes, and to keep the child in foster care for days. Bad enough. But then during the court hearing, to insist that the baby be taken away when it was heard crying and hungry outside the courtroom? To refuse to take a recess so the mother could nurse? To make public, irrelevant negative comments about breastfeeding on the court record?
What’s up with that?
October 27th, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
hypothetically speaking, if the test does detect a disease leading to disability, are there preventative measures one can take to avoid the disability? the judge seems to have the idea that lack of testing will cause disease & disability, thus the parents are negilgent, or something.
when my son was born at a freestanding birth center, we did decide to have the 1st set of infant screening, but my baby boy’s screams (in my arms, i held him while his midwife/godmother did the heel pricking) were too much for me to put him through it a second time, so i opted out of the second set. we’ve not had him in for any vaccinations or even medical exams. he will be a year old in 2 weeks & is perfectly fine & healthy. if he were to have developed a disease that went undiscovered, we would have just rolled with it. i mean, what could we do about it anyway?
October 27th, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
OK, some of the things that they screen for can be life-threatening if they’re not caught quickly, and they are easily treatable. (I live in an area with a lot of kids with maple-syrup urine disease… yes, that’s a real disease, look it up- it’s scary!) However, most of these diseases have VERY clear symptoms that would have any reasonably cognizant parent rushing to their doctor within a day or two anyway. (Baby not eating, baby crying 24-7, baby turning blue, etc!) And to put the baby’s health at risk by forcing it to eat formula (they’re lucky the baby in question took a bottle!) is both mean and dangerous. We want your child to be heathy, so we’re going to make it eat junk until we’re sure it is? That makes NO sense. This judge should be disbarred. Mental note to self: Do not move to Nebraska.
October 28th, 2007 @ 9:31 am
The judge is obviously on a power trip and like many elected or appointed officials she believes she can do whatever she wants without consequence. I am so sick and tired of people like that who think they have the right to interfere with our freedom and try to force us to conform to their ideas or else. Seems like a perfect topic for a national news report to me.
October 28th, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
I live in Omaha and I stay on top of the news but I didn’t hear about this case! Funny how someone across the country can inform you of something happening in your own town…
I do know of Judge Elizabeth Crnkovich though. I had a run-in with her as a juvenile and she was indeed very mean. She has a nickname here as, well, take the last syllable of her name (which is pronounced “Sern-ko-vitch”) and rhyme it starting with a B, and… I think you get it.
I find it odd that the parents didn’t get the state-mandated screening done, as it wasn’t anything that would be harmful to the baby, although I acknowledge and respect their religious concerns. I just find it unusual. If the state they live in has a law that they must comply with even if it’s against their religion, then legally, they still need to follow that law. There are lots of things that religions say are OK or not OK that are in conflict with our laws, but the laws of man come before the laws of God in our legal systems. So to instead follow that law of God, which is what’s the right thing to do religiously, one must be prepared to face the consequences of the laws of man.
So while I understand both the state law’s point of view, as well as that of the parents, I ABSOLUTELY think that Judge Crnkovich’s ruling was ENTIRELY UNFAIR, and yes, even cruel. But if you ever met her yourself, this would come as no surprise (I was not at all shocked when I read that she was the one who did this), as you would know that she is a heartless, ice-cold woman. Couldn’t the parents have been just ordered to comply or be given a fine or community service or something? To take away their child, and not allowed to breastfeed, even against the recommendations of the social worker, is just ridiculous!