By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Nebraska father Jason Kilburn faces significant challenges obtaining a social security number and legally changing his daughter’s name from the state-assigned “Unakite Thirteen Hotel” to Caroline. This issue stems from a year-long foster care placement following accusations against the mother, resulting in a birth certificate unusable for civilian purposes. The lack of proper documentation prevents Kilburn from securing essential services like insurance and daycare. Legal intervention, including attempts to reopen the juvenile court case and the potential passage of State Sen. Hunt’s LB368 bill, is underway to rectify this situation.
Read the original article here
The story of Unakite Thirteen Hotel highlights a deeply troubling issue within the child welfare system: the bureaucratic hurdles faced by parents attempting to secure basic identification documents for their children. The father’s struggle to change his daughter’s state-assigned name and obtain her social security number is a jarring example of how systemic failures can create immense difficulties for families.
The situation began with the child being placed in foster care after her mother’s arrest. Nebraska, the state responsible for her care, inexplicably assigned her the name Unakite Thirteen Hotel – a seemingly computer-generated moniker that lacks any personal connection or meaning. This random designation immediately creates a significant obstacle in navigating bureaucratic processes.
This unusual name instantly causes problems. The lack of a proper name is not just an inconvenience; it’s a significant barrier to accessing essential services and legal recognition. Imagine trying to enroll a child in school, apply for medical care, or even simply open a bank account under such a name. The sheer absurdity of the situation is compounded by the absence of a social security number and a birth certificate.
The father, who has gained custody, faces a daunting task. He needs to rectify the situation, but the system seems designed to obstruct rather than facilitate. The “for government use only” restriction on the birth certificate further illustrates the disconnect between the state’s actions and the practical needs of the family. This essentially renders the document useless to the father, the child’s legal guardian. The absurdity is further amplified by the comparison to the swiftness with which the federal government acted in changing the gender marker on Hunter Schafer’s passport, highlighting a stark contrast in bureaucratic efficiency based on circumstance.
One might question the rationale behind the state assigning such random names. While some suggest that these names are intended as placeholders, their use perpetuates a system that dehumanizes children in foster care. The lack of empathy demonstrated by such practices is concerning, suggesting a system that prioritizes administrative convenience over the welfare of vulnerable individuals. The seemingly arbitrary choice of words—Unakite, Thirteen, and Hotel—speaks to a system in which the inherent dignity of a child is overlooked.
The absence of a social security number is equally alarming. This fundamental identifier is essential for countless life functions, and its absence leaves Unakite Thirteen Hotel vulnerable and marginalized. This failure suggests a critical flaw in the child protective services system, which ideally should ensure that children in foster care have all necessary documentation. The failure to secure the social security number at the point of removal into state care highlights a significant systemic deficiency.
The difficulties faced by this family are not unique. Anecdotal evidence and similar experiences described paint a worrying picture of the systemic challenges faced by parents navigating the foster care system and the bureaucratic red tape that accompanies it. The challenges encountered by this family are echoed by others who have struggled with similar name-related issues, illustrating a larger issue within the system.
This situation has clear parallels to other cases, such as the challenges faced by families attempting to adopt children whose names are placeholder designations like “Baby Boy.” The sheer logistical nightmares of obtaining visas, enrolling children in school, or simply providing a child with a sense of identity are staggering. In such instances, the bureaucratic obstacles are so great they often prevent families from providing for their children’s basic needs.
There are clear implications regarding this specific case. The father’s arduous journey underscores the urgency for reform within the system. Simpler processes for name changes and obtaining birth certificates and social security numbers for children in foster care are desperately needed. Furthermore, the seemingly random generation of names should be replaced with more humane and respectful practices. The state’s role in providing proper identification should prioritize the child’s welfare and legal standing.
Ultimately, the case of Unakite Thirteen Hotel serves as a stark reminder of the need for greater oversight and accountability within the child welfare system. The father’s struggle highlights the urgent need for systematic improvements to ensure that all children, regardless of their circumstances, have access to the basic documents necessary for a full and meaningful life. The ongoing struggle to secure basic identification for a child is a stark indictment of current practices. Unakite Thirteen Hotel’s story is not simply a bizarre anecdote; it’s a call for urgent reform within a system designed to protect children but often fails to do so.