Posted on 10/17/2007 7:14:18 PM PDT by jabchae
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.
Joel's parents, Mary and Josue Anaya of Omaha, object to the testing because of their religious beliefs and conscience. They believe in certain Scriptures that say life is in the blood.
The Anayas previously fought a court order that the testing be done on their daughter, Rosa, but in 2005, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the order to have the testing performed. In that case, Rosa remained in the Anayas' custody while the case was being argued.
State law requires metabolic testing of all newborns. The tests, which involve pricking a baby's heel and drawing about five drops of blood, are used to screen for a variety of conditions, including cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. Doctors recommend the test be performed when babies are between 1 day and 1 week old, because the diseases could lead to mental retardation or death.
Most states provide some sort of exception for people who object to the blood tests based on "religious" or "sincerely held" beliefs. Nebraska has no such provision.
Joel was taken into state custody after a petition was filed Wednesday in Douglas County Juvenile Court. Prosecutors argued that because Joel has not received the testing, he is at risk for mental retardation or death.
Douglas County Juvenile Court Judge Elizabeth Crnkovich agreed.
"I can't imagine greater risk than death or disability. How does it get any worse than those two things?" she said at Friday's hearing, which was held to determine whether Joel should remain in state custody or be returned to his parents.
Crnkovich said she didn't believe the Anayas would follow the order to have the testing done, so she ordered that the boy remain in foster care until preliminary results confirm no further testing is needed.
"I don't know how long it will take. I am sensitive to the love of these parents. But I have to admit, I don't understand placing a loved one at risk. That one boggles the mind," Crnkovich said.
Hospital staff say results could take about a week.
Earlier in the hearing, Mary Anaya, who has been visiting her son several times a day in foster care to breastfeed, cringed when she heard him crying from outside the courtroom.
Dressed in a conservative black suit, she told the judge her convictions prevented her from swearing, so instead she "affirmed" to tell the truth before taking the stand. During her testimony, she answered questions about her son's feeding habits. "Do you nurse your baby?" her attorney, Jeff Downing, asked.
"Yes," she replied.
"How many times per day?"
"Eight or nine times," she said.
"If I said someone came in and said the baby needs nursed, this would be about the right time, wouldn't it?"
Interrupting, Crnkovich said the line of questioning was inappropriate and briefly talked to the attorneys in private.
She then left the courtroom, and when she returned, she quipped, "It has come to the court's attention . . . that the child is hungry and needs to be fed."
She ordered workers with the Nebraska Health and Human Services Department to take the baby out of the courthouse, feed him, and not bring him back.
She later added, "I don't approve of Mom popping in (to the foster home) nine times a day to nurse."
The hearing continued with Mary Anaya on the stand.
When asked what her objection to the testing was, Anaya said the Bible states that life is in the blood. "To me, the blood is something important and not to be tampered with," she said.
Anaya and her husband are ordained ministers and administrators of the Mission for All Nations food and clothing pantry in Omaha. They take their faith very seriously and are raising their children according to those beliefs, Anaya told the court.
But after the hearing, crying in a courtroom hallway, Mary Anaya seemed more concerned about her son being fed than the testing being done.
"This is inhumane — to deny my right to feed my baby," she said, distraught over where her baby had been taken.
The Anayas have 10 children aged 21 years to 6 weeks. They have avoided having the metabolic screening done on most of their 10 children.
Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom
Copyright ©2007 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
Thanks. Joel’s personal statistical chances of having a disease (considering 9 healthy siblings and the fact that as a healthy 6 week old most of the diseases would have already begun to manifest) was probably less than 1 in 100,000. His chances were higher to die in a car accident on the way to the lab. However, the judge said that she did not care how statistically rare the diseases were if the state could save one baby they should do it!!?? I guess all of our children should live in a bubble.
This site has complaint info. She also did 3 comic strips about our case. I am working on multiple bills for the state legislature.
http://www.thecowgoddess.com/?cat=11
“So you’re OK with this?”
I am OK with what? Huh?
This is an old thread!
So you’re okay with the government keeping a baby and its parents separated for 6 days? It’s dangerous to get between a mother and her child...at least it should be...
Yes, it is an old thread, but I don’t appreciate your insinuations. No, government confiscation of children is not OK with me. Would you like to make any other outrageous accusations?
Well, it sounded like you thought it was okay, quote “By the way, the parents did get the baby back, only a little worse for wear, after six days.”
Should I insist that the baby is irremediably damaged, even if the mom says the baby is OK? I don't think Mary wanted everyone to be concerned that her child had not come back yet.
By the way, "by the way" is a flag indicating that what follows is not crucial to the issue at hand.
I think your situation is horrible. I am so sorry this is happening. I will pray for someone to have wisdom in your court case and let your baby be with his Mommy.
You keep making my point, (thank you!) that it is a big deal. Are you a parent?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.