Nebraska made the national news this week after two boys — a 15-year-old and a 11-year-old —became the first to be legally abandoned under the state's new safe haven law.

And on Saturday a 13-year-old girl was abandoned.

In the first two cases, the guardians, an aunt in Lincoln and a mom in Omaha, basically said they were at their wits’ end and couldn't handle the boys’ behavior.

Nebraska took some ribbing about the law, which went into effect in July and strayed from the narrow purpose of other so-called safe haven laws: to protect newborns from being tossed in the trash by desperate mothers.

The only law in the nation that allows parents to abandon older children grew out of a compromise last year after it became apparent Nebraska might become the only state without any safe haven law.

"It became clear to me if you wanted to get a safe haven bill passed that would protect babies, it would require the broad coverage," said Omaha Sen. Pete Pirsch, part of the group who worked on the compromise.

Most legislative compromises come about in private offices, or at least in the semi-privacy of the Rotunda outside the Legislative Chamber. But this compromise was initially drafted on the floor, in the heat of the moment.

Senators couldn't decide on an appropriate age: 72 hours, 30 days, one year?

It was clear the system had stalled. Debate simply stopped. A dozen senators clustered in the middle aisle.

From that huddle came the agreement that Nebraska's safe haven would be available for all children, not just infants.

There was a two-week period between the huddle, Jan. 16, and a vote on specific language, Jan. 31, so senators had time to weigh the consequences of including children under the safe haven protection.

Senators then passed this simple language: "No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child."

There was a lot of confusion and contention, Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers said.

"And I chuckled in spite of myself."

Chambers, an inveterate opponent, had agreed to drop his filibuster if senators still fighting could come up with a compromise.

Omaha Sen. Tom White, the most vocal of those who wanted to move beyond infants, says he's disappointed in last weekend's use of the new law.

The only legitimate reason to leave a child at the hospital is a reasonable fear that the parent will hurt the child, he said.

The goal was to protect vulnerable children.

In fact, by using the word "child," White said he intended that the top age be 13. That's the oldest age of a "child" as defined under common law.

White said he was hoping to protect younger children, say, 11 and younger.

"Older teenagers have a lot more options for protecting themselves (from physical abuse)," he said.

Gov. Dave Heineman suggested last week that the drop-offs of older children should prompt changes in the new law.

But other senators involved in the compromise, who simply wanted a safe haven for infants, are not necessarily disappointed with the outcome.

And there may be no rush to join the herd and limit the law to babies.

Look at the number of teen suicides, said Omaha Sen. Rich Pahls, who offered one of the two safe haven bills.

"If nothing else, last weekend's abandonment of two teens shows an area that needs attention," he said. "We need to take a look at the mental health issues involving children."

Another safe haven leader, Sen Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, says he's not going to jump into any changes hastily.

"There may be things we can learn," he said.

Maybe people don't know where there are services available, he said. Maybe in really tough situations they don't know where to turn.

"Let's just let the dust settle,” he said.

Reach Nancy Hicks at 473-7250 or nhicks@journalstar.com.