This beautiful family, the Anayas of Omaha, was torn apart October 11th when baby Joel, age 6 weeks, was removed from the family home by the Department of Health and Human Services with the assistance of three armed deputies.
The officers were acting on an ex parte court order because baby Joel’s parents, Josue and Mary Anaya, have faith-based objections to Nebraska’s Newborn Screening program which requires that blood be drawn for testing.
Jefferson Downing of Keating, O’Gara, Nedved & Peter is representing the Anaya family.
Nebraska’s program screens for nine very rare genetic diseases. The presumptive positive rate for the newborn screens in 2006 was less than 1/4 of 1 percent. The percentage of confirmed positive cases was even lower.
Baby Joel is back home now but only after going through six days of traumatic separation from his family and the blood draw procedure which deeply offended the parents’ faith and conscience.
From the Omaha World Herald:
Baby is now home from foster care
BY JENNIFER PALMER
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
October 17, 2007Baby Joel Anaya was welcomed home Tuesday into his mother’s arms. And his father’s arms. And his sister’s. And his brother’s. And another sister’s. And another brother’s.
In fact, all nine of Joel’s siblings held, kissed or otherwise fawned over the 6-week-old brother they hadn’t seen since he was whisked into foster care last week.
“Finally, he’s home,” said older brother John Anaya. “He should have never left.”
The family of 12 piled onto a small couch for a photograph of the happy moment, with the baby in the center. Not having Joel “has been very stressful for the family,” said Josue Anaya, their father.
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. The Anayas were then reunited with their son, and prosecutors dismissed the case.
Joel’s parents say they object to the testing because of their religious beliefs and conscience. They believe in certain Scriptures that say life is in the blood.
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.
Mary Anaya, 40, said she will keep pushing for Nebraska to adopt an exception to the state-mandated testing, for the sake of her children and the grandchildren she hopes to have in the future.
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 born at home. Workers with the Nebraska Health and Human Services Department routinely cross-check a database of newborns who have had the screening with birth certificates issued. In Joel’s case, a worker noticed the boy had a birth certificate but had not been screened.
The HHS worker first sent the Anayas a certified letter informing them that their baby needed to be screened in accordance with state law. She also called Mary Anaya, congratulated her on her new baby and asked if she planned to have the baby screened, according to court testimony.
Mary Anaya said she did not. Then the worker asked Mary if she knew what would happen next. Mary said, yes, we’ve been through this before.
The Anayas previously fought a court order that required 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.
So when sheriff’s deputies arrived Oct. 10 to take Joel into state custody, it was a complete shock, Mary Anaya said. She expected to be summoned to court, but she didn’t expect her child to be placed in foster care.
In court Friday, Mary Anaya explained that part of her objection to the blood screening is she doesn’t believe in inflicting pain on a healthy infant. She also said the Bible talks about how life is in the blood. “To me, the blood is something important and not to be tampered with lightly,” she told the court.
Mary Anaya declined to discuss her religious beliefs in detail Tuesday because she said she feared others might mock them. Anaya and her husband are ordained ministers. They also are administrators of the Mission for All Nations food and clothing pantry in Omaha.
They have avoided having the metabolic screening done on most of their 10 children, who now are ages 21 years to 6 weeks.
Every parent chooses the risks they are or are not willing to take with their own children, she said, adding that she won’t allow her son to play football because of the risk he could be injured.
In an earlier proceeding the Court not only ordered the blood draw but placed restrictions on Joel’s ability to be nursed by his mother–the only form of hydration and nutrition he has known in his young life:
Omaha court case widens from screening test to baby’s meals
BY JENNIFER PALMER
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
October 13, 2007A 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.
. . . 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.
print post
site map
4 Comments
I cannot believe that a judge would be so cruel and heartless as to deny a mother her right to breastfeed her new baby. This whole situation is absolutely ridiculous, and I hope that it will be settled soon.
It is an atrocity that in a country that is supposed to be free, that this can happen. A woman has a choice to kill her child in the womb, but has no choice when it comes to a vitrually useless test. I have 3 sons, and unfortunately, was naive to this testing. It was done on all 3 of them, as was the vitamin K injection that I didn’t even know was done until I had my second child. It is insane that things our done to our children in a hospital setting without us even first being told about it. I have chosen to not immunize my 3 sons, not for religious reasons, but for the belief that that these are more injurious to children that the risk of the disease for which they allegedly protect them against. When I was pregnant with my first son, I was under the assumption that vaccines were mandatory. It wasn’t until I did my research that I learned otherwise. However, the medical industry has done a good job of convincing parents that they are neccessary. The majority of parents follow doctors blindly, as if they are infallable. They are told of all the benefits, but the horrific results are quickly gone over, without any detail. Sadly, parents aren’t given the option that they don’t have to do this to their kids. It just seems ironic that in the land of the free, these sorts of things are being done to our children, and that parents get backed into corners because of the threat of having their kids taken from them.
On another note, I was always under the impression that foster care was supposed to protect children from dangerous situations. Hardly, a woman who didn’t want to subject her child to pain, and who nurses him 9 times a day constitutes a danger. It seems as though Judge Crnkovich, HHS, and the prosecutors abused the system by holding little Joel hostage in the foster care system until the blood was taken. It sickens me that something like this has happened in this country. But then again, it wouldn’t be the first time I read about Judge Crnkovich having poor judgement. This is the same judge who has placed children back into some pretty bad situations. Ironic! And how many times have we read about dead kids because of HHS returning children to volatile situations or not doing the proper screening, or “overlooking” red flags. SCARY!
Absolutely ridiculous. Both the lowly Deputy Attorney and the “Honorable” Judge should be charged with grievous injury to a newborn and gross neglect. Never mind you that these are both women who, you’d think, should know better.
Denying a mother the right the nurse her own child is more dangerous than any of the diseases they could possibly screen for. At worst, the child’s immune system is weakened, the mother/child bond is harmed and the child might turn out a heartless law-type.
It is my sincere hope that these people are removed from their positions.
My daughter’s PKU screening story – she was repeatedly slit with a razor blade when the “prick” didn’t draw enough blood. The proceedure took 28 minutes, with her screaming the entire time…finally on the fourth attempt with the razor blade I said that would be the last, they would have to stop, and I was told they would NOT stop until the proceedure was complete, at which time the nurse removed her from my arms and held her herself. I was 19 and on welfare, and really felt I had no recourse but to sit, sobbing, as I watched them cut my firstborn’s tiny foot to ribbons. This test is not necessarily the “trauma-free” experience they advertise it to be, and is performed with little or no information given to the parents before hand. Thank you for educating the public, and fighting for parents’ rights.