 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / May 2006SC - NEWS - Infant left at hospital under Daniel's Law
SOUTH CAROLINA http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&edition=us&q=safe+haven+law Infant left at hospital under Daniel's Law RICHLAND COUNTY - Sat, May. 13, 2006 An infant girl was left at Providence Hospital Northeast on Monday by an adult woman, according to officials from the Richland County Department of Social Services. (DSS). The infant was left there under the "Safe Haven for Abandoned Infants Act," also known as Daniel's Law. Officials said the girl is healthy and is in a foster home in DSS custody. A permanency planning hearing for the child will be held June 15 at the Family Court Judicial Center. Anyone wanting to assert parental rights must do so at the hearing. > SOUTH CAROLINA > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Officials said the girl is healthy and is in a foster home in DSS > custody. A permanency planning hearing for the child will be held June 15 at the Family Court Judicial Center. Anyone wanting to assert parental rights must do so at the hearing. ___ Interesting: a person may legally abandon a child anonymously but must come forward publicly to reclaim the child. J. > > SOUTH CAROLINA > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Interesting: a person may legally abandon a child anonymously but must > come forward publicly to reclaim the child. Cant say I have a big problem with that. If someone abandons a child, there must be pretty serious forces at play, whether fear of family (boyfriend, parents, etc) or post-partum depression or whatever. So if the child is to go back two questions need answers. One, are they the right people, actually the parent/s? Two, is it safe for the child to return to them? If a person could reclaim a child anonymously, how would it be clear that the identity of the recoverer had been proved? Or that whatever circumstance led to the baby being abandoned in the first place did not still exist? DB > > > SOUTH CAROLINA > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > need answers. One, are they the right people, actually the parent/s? > Two, is it safe for the child to return to them? Both of these questions that can be answered without having to appear at a public hearing. My problem with the process is that it is likely to discourage a woman who abandoned in the first place from coming forward to reclaim her child. > If a person could reclaim a child anonymously, how would it be clear > that the identity of the recoverer had been proved? Or that whatever > circumstance led to the baby being abandoned in the first place did not > still exist? Again, these concerns can be resolved outside of a public hearing, as is the case in most child welfare matters. A cynic might think the law intentionally was stacked against reclaiming a child. I, however, would never claim to be a cynic. J. > DB > > > Interesting: a person may legally abandon a child anonymously but must > > > come forward publicly to reclaim the child. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > A cynic might think the law intentionally was stacked against > reclaiming a child. I, however, would never claim to be a cynic. Maybe so. But first, why shouldn't the law be stacked against reclaiming? Surely handing over a child to the fire station or hospital is a prima facie indication of unreadiness to parent? This is not a parent who has come up with an adoption plan and then changed her mind. This is someone who has legally abandoned a child. Maybe it was a mistake. But at this point, IMO, the burden of proof shd be on the parent as to why they would now be ready when they were not before. And coming out in public and saying so seems to be just a trivial step in this process. Second, given the fraught situation with children who are being removed from their natural parents. I have great faith in the legal system, but openness IMO is a good way to keep things honest. If the parents have a strong case for resuming parenting the child, IMV they have a good chance of getting it back. Otherwise in some cases that baby is just going to be fresh meat for the adoption industry, even if it ws some well-meaning 3rd party that took the baby and dropped it off. DB > > > > Interesting: a person may legally abandon a child anonymously but must > > > > come forward publicly to reclaim the child. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Maybe so. But first, why shouldn't the law be stacked against reclaiming? ____ Cautious? Sure. Stacked against, why? Certainly there was something seriously awry for a child to be abandoned, but that might range from a terrifying sperm donor threatening harm to a grandparent demanding a call to a receptionist (an inside joike here) to addiction. <Surely > handing over a child to the fire station or hospital is a prima facie > indication of unreadiness to parent? This is not a parent who has come > up with an adoption plan and then changed her mind. This is someone who > has legally abandoned a child. Maybe it was a mistake. But at this > point, IMO, the burden of proof shd be on the parent as to why they > would now be ready when they were not before. And coming out in public and saying so seems to be just a trivial step in this process. __ Hardly a trivial step for someone who required / took advantage of anonymity to abandon the child in the first place. > And coming out in public and saying so seems to be just a trivial step > in this process. > __ > > Hardly a trivial step for someone who required / took advantage of > anonymity to abandon the child in the first place. Maybe so. But raising kids is not a secret hobby. The stroppy ex-boyfriend or grandma is going to notice there's a baby around You can abandon a baby and pretend you never had one. But you can't keep and raise one and pretend it's not there. There's an essential public element to being a parent. If someone is not in a position to publicly admit to being a parent, then IMO there is still a risk to the child. DB >> > > > Interesting: a person may legally abandon a child anonymously but >> > > > must [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Hardly a trivial step for someone who required / took advantage of > anonymity to abandon the child in the first place. A couple years ago a mother of twins left her newborn at a Dayton hospital on Christmas Eve.. She went to court to reclaim later. We can't find out anything about it. The case was held in Juv. Court and the judge sealed all information on the case. The Dayton Daily News had the name of the woman and I have the baby's name which was actually released by the hospital and published in the paper (nobody screamed about that) and promised not to print it. The court denied them access to the court and court records on the grounds that the mother surrendered under promise of anon. and although she came forward to reclaim in open court, if her name was published it would discourage other parents from anon. dumping. The Daily News decided not to pursue legal action for a variety of reasons, none of which they were actually happy with. Marley Marleyl ----- Original Message ----- From: "J." <jmdjmh@aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.adoption Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:27 PM Subject: Re: SC - NEWS - Infant left at hospital under Daniel's Law >> > > SOUTH CAROLINA >> > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >> DB I agree with you, J. I don't know how SC works, but in Ohio the hearings take place in Juv. Court and records are sealed. (Not sure about public access to the actual hearings, though.) Also, somebody probably just wouldn't show up. They'd have already contacted SC, but again, just showing up is a possibility. They have to be served notice if they are ID'd. We don't know if they're served in newspapers, though, if not ID'd. It's impossible to even get a case number out of the clerk's office. Babies are being returned, however. Half of the babies SH'd in Franklin County have been returned to mothers or kin.. I believe that this happens because the state doesn't want the law constitutionally challenged. The general belief amongst adoption lawyers here is that SH is indeed unconstitutional and would not withstand scrutiny by someone with standing. Of course, the problem is getting someone with standing. If a parent kids the kid back, they're not about to go to court and make a fuss over the law after the fact. Marley Babies > are being returned, however. Half of the babies SH'd in Franklin County > have been returned to mothers or kin.. I believe that this happens because > the state doesn't want the law constitutionally challenged. Or because the backers of SH's acytually want the babies to be safe, and once they are, they have no problem returning them? So far, it seems 1. SH babies are safe. No dead SH babies yet (run over by fire-truck, frozen on a church step, dropped by an incompetent Havener). 2. The numbers are still so small that it makes news so this is not an empidemic of SH'd babies. 3. Parents have a regret period in which to retrive the baby, which is more than some states give to legally reliquished babies. 4. The regret period actually works and babies are being returned. This does not prove that SH works. It does not show that babies in SH are the ones that would be in the trash or the parking lot. But it does show that it is not a complete fuckup. It puts the moral burden of proof on the anti-SH people, IMO, to show that SH is bad. DB > Babies > > are being returned, however. Half of the babies SH'd in Franklin County [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 1. SH babies are safe. No dead SH babies yet (run over by fire-truck, > frozen on a church step, dropped by an incompetent Havener). Legally adopted babies are also safe. > 2. The numbers are still so small that it makes news so this is not an > empidemic of SH'd babies. Give it time. More babies (and older) are being abandoned than before the law went into effect. There wasn't an 'epidemic' of trashcan babies before baby dumps either btw. > 3. Parents have a regret period in which to retrive the baby, which is > more than some states give to legally reliquished babies. Have you examined each state to see how the SH vs relinquishment to be able to say this with any degree of certainty? For example in states that have stringent laws regarding relinquishment/regret periods equally as stringent with laws regarding SH/regret periods? > 4. The regret period actually works and babies are being returned. > > This does not prove that SH works. It does not show that babies in SH > are the ones that would be in the trash or the parking lot. But that is the whole basis on which SH is built! But it does > show that it is not a complete fuckup. Yes it is a complete f.ck up based on how the laws were promoted. > It puts the moral burden of proof on the anti-SH people, IMO, to show > that SH is bad. Wrong! The moral burden of proof is on the pro-SH people to prove that why they *said* the laws were needed is what is actually being addressed. You don't lobby for a law on one basis and then try to claim that is isn't a bad law because it hasn't completely harmed others that the law wasn't intended for! On that basis this law is completely amoral. My own feeling is that the most vocal proponents weren't sure the law would work as intended and didn't really care because there was no shortage of new parents for any babies that were abandoned under the law. Kathy 1 > <darth_breather@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > So far, it seems > > 1. SH babies are safe. No dead SH babies yet (run over by fire-truck, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > law went into effect. There wasn't an 'epidemic' of trashcan babies before > baby dumps either btw. OK, fair enough. Numbers were always small. Are you saying that SH is becoming a substitute for legal relinquishment and porbably for CPS actions as well? > > 3. Parents have a regret period in which to retrive the baby, which is > > more than some states give to legally reliquished babies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stringent laws regarding relinquishment/regret periods equally as stringent > with laws regarding SH/regret periods? Nope. Did anyone here do that? I wd be intersted in the results. > Wrong! The moral burden of proof is on the pro-SH people to prove that why > they *said* the laws were needed is what is actually being addressed. You > don't lobby for a law on one basis and then try to claim that is isn't a bad > law because it hasn't completely harmed others that the law wasn't intended > for! You dont? Thats the foundation of lots of things in the US. Social security numbers started as a way of providing for retirement, now its an ID number and even babies get them. Drivers licenses become photo-ID. WMDs become democratic evangelism. But OK. I get yr point. Thing is, there is no way to show that SH kids are potential dumpsterites. If the number of unsafely abandoned babies comes down, then it may be an indication, it still is not proof. If something is unprovable, it does not mean it is untrue. Or that it is true either. On that basis this law is completely amoral. My own feeling is that > the most vocal proponents weren't sure the law would work as intended and > didn't really care because there was no shortage of new parents for any > babies that were abandoned under the law. How can anyone be sure that the law would work as intended? The fact that there is no shortage of new parents is good, IMO. Who would want the babies to end up in orphan homes or lifetime foster care? >> <darth_breather@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> before >> baby dumps either btw. > OK, fair enough. Numbers were always small. > > Are you saying that SH is becoming a substitute for legal > relinquishment and porbably for CPS actions as well? Yes. And that was always the agenda. NCFA for instance, admited it early on. This was always about keeping identities secret and kicking dads out of the adoption process. >> > 3. Parents have a regret period in which to retrive the baby, which is >> > more than some states give to legally reliquished babies. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> stringent >> with laws regarding SH/regret periods? No. > Nope. Did anyone here do that? I wd be intersted in the results. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > an ID number and even babies get them. Drivers licenses become > photo-ID. WMDs become democratic evangelism. And SS should be abolished. > But OK. I get yr point. Thing is, there is no way to show that SH kids > are potential dumpsterites. If the number of unsafely abandoned babies > comes down, then it may be an indication, it still is not proof. If > something is unprovable, it does not mean it is untrue. Or that it is > true either. There's growing anecdotal evidence. Of course when everything from the "surrender to court records are sealed it's impossible to know what's going on. > On that basis this law is completely amoral. My own feeling is that >> the most vocal proponents weren't sure the law would work as intended and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would want the babies to end up in orphan homes or lifetime foster > care? As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. Stigmatize faux breeding and it wil lgo away. Marley > As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. Stigmatize > faux breeding and it wil lgo away. What's faux breeding? Producing kids without being ready for them? It *is* stigmatized, though not as much as it used to be a generation ago. But is that what you really want? To go back to the days where girls were stigmatized for getting pregnant? > > As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. Stigmatize > > faux breeding and it wil lgo away. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It *is* stigmatized, though not as much as it used to be a generation > ago. > But is that what you really want? > To go back to the days where girls were stigmatized for getting > pregnant? I'd like to see mothers who have crisis pregnancies stigmatized for using Safe Havens. Who wouldn't? On another note, I don't think anyone should be stigmatized for having an untimely pregnancy. It bothers me when someone uses their own moral compass to judge the choices of other women. Kathy >> > As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. >> > Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > using Safe Havens. > Who wouldn't? Boy, that's a great idea, Kathy. I'm tired of them being portrayed as courgaeous, when their sniveling little cowards. > On another note, I don't think anyone should be stigmatized for having > an untimely pregnancy. It bothers me when someone uses their own moral > compass to judge the choices of other women. Like mek except mine is based on my comfort compass. I don't want near the things. My flight between Philly and Detroit last night was one loud sprog scream. Amazing how one of those things can ruin a trip. Of course, Moo just sat there. Marley > Kathy > >> > As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. > >> > Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Boy, that's a great idea, Kathy. I'm tired of them being portrayed as > courgaeous, when their sniveling little cowards. There's a fine line between cowardice and courage. Just ask Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson. > > On another note, I don't think anyone should be stigmatized for having > > an untimely pregnancy. It bothers me when someone uses their own moral > > compass to judge the choices of other women. Except when the issue is anonymous relinquishment, it seems. > Like mek except mine is based on my comfort compass. I don't want near the > things. My flight between Philly and Detroit last night was one loud sprog > scream. Amazing how one of those things can ruin a trip. Of course, Moo just > sat there. What's a Moo to do? Dad > I'd like to see mothers who have crisis pregnancies stigmatized for > using Safe Havens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an untimely pregnancy. It bothers me when someone uses their own moral > compass to judge the choices of other women. This is complex. Its OK to have sex. Its OK to have an unplanned pregnancy. Its (OK? Not-OK?) to have an abortion. Its OK to have a baby without visible means of support. Its maybe OK to relinquish that baby through an agency. Its not-OK to relinquish that baby into SH. Its totally not OK to leave the kid lying around somewhere. Stigma should be reserved for those following post-birth option 3. IMO. >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. >> Stigmatize >> faux breeding and it wil lgo away. > > What's faux breeding? > Producing kids without being ready for them? No. Adoption. Taking on somebody else's problem. > It *is* stigmatized, though not as much as it used to be a generation > ago. > But is that what you really want? > To go back to the days where girls were stigmatized for getting > pregnant? I don't want them pregnant at all. I want them to stand up and be human beings, not girrrly girls throwing their lives away on brats. Marley > >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. > >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No. Adoption. Taking on somebody else's problem. Okay. So what would you do with the little problems? Drown them in a bucket of water? >> >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. >> >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Okay. So what would you do with the little problems? Drown them in a > bucket of water? Free abortion on demand would be a starter. That would cut down on the product. Other than that, I don't know. Unlike most people here, I don't think orphanages are a bad idea if run properlym which, of course, they won't be. Marley > >> >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. > >> >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Free abortion on demand would be a starter. Free birth control on demand would be even better. For parents (moms or dads) who have a history of abusing or neglecting their children - mandatory birth control would be better still. >That would cut down on the product. Not to mention it would put Maury Povich out of business. >Other than that, I don't know. Unlike most people here, I don't > think orphanages are a bad idea if run properlym which, of course, they > won't be. Which leaves us back again at square one. Dad >> >> >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. >> >> >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > or dads) who have a history of abusing or neglecting their children - > mandatory birth control would be better still. May as long get it while we still can. I was just going straight to the source. >>That would cut down on the product. > > Not to mention it would put Maury Povich out of business. I've weened myself away from Maury, but my addiction could reccur at any time. >>Other than that, I don't know. Unlike most people here, I don't >> think orphanages are a bad idea if run properly which, of course, they >> won't be. > > Which leaves us back again at square one. We could them to work in factories. Oh, that's right. We dont' have factories in the US any more. I guess that means we could ship them to China and India. Marley > Dad > >> No. Adoption. Taking on somebody else's problem. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > think orphanages are a bad idea if run properlym which, of course, they > won't be. Orphanages don't work for infants, anyway. They gotta have individual attention. There's a high mortality rate if they don't get it. And they don't work so well for older children either; it takes a lot of dedication to raise someone else's child well. Hell, it takes a fair amount to raise your own child well. In a group setting, it's even more difficult. And can you imagine the funding situation? I'm for the faux breeding unless you have a better plan. Post-birth abortion is unlikely to gain widespread approval. > > >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. > > >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Okay. So what would you do with the little problems? Drown them in a > bucket of water? Well that's the next step isn't it? Some people abandon puppies & kittens, some drown them. Some people abandon babies, some people kill (drown?) them. We have animal shelters for the former and SH for the latter. Apparently society wants it to be as easy to abandon one's child as it is to abandon one's animal. Kathy 1 > > > >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. > > > >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Kathy 1 It's actually harder to leave a pet at a Humane Society shelter than it is to drop off of a child at a SH, at least in my area. They require ID, vet history, payment, etc. It's a shame we can't even get an ID for a child. J. <snip> > It's actually harder to leave a pet at a Humane Society shelter than it > is to drop off of a child at a SH, at least in my area. They require > ID, vet history, payment, etc. It's a shame we can't even get an ID > for a child. The problem is most people don't abandon animals at the Humane Society. Why go through all that scrutiny, paperwork, and expense when a long drive into the country will do the same job? If this pisses you off, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know what many local farmers do with unwanted cats - they go for a swim in a tied off burlap sack. Would more of those animals be saved if the Humane Society had an anonymous drop box? Or would it actually encourage abandonment by "responsible pet" owners who would be predisposed to otherwise keep their pets? I believe the comparison is flawed on several levels. I think "responsible" pet abandonment at a Human Society has more in common with newborn reliquishment through an adoption agency - not through safe haven Thank god abandoned or abused children aren't euthanized after 90 days if no one adopts or reclaims them. Dad Dad Dad > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "responsible pet" owners who would be predisposed to otherwise keep > their pets? If they were "predisposed" to keeping their pets they probably wouldn't be looking for a way to abandon their pets. Even less likely that if they were "predisposed" to keeping their pets, that they would be in the state of mind that they would abandon them on the side of the road and drive off. So really the question becomes would an anonymous drop box encourage people who didn't want their pets to use that instead of the Humane Society or finding homes for their pets. I actual have personal experience with a similiar situation but I'll spare you the details ;) > I believe the comparison is flawed on several levels. I think > "responsible" pet abandonment at a Human Society has more in common > with newborn reliquishment through an adoption agency - not through > safe haven So let's put anonymous drop boxes at the adoption agencies and get rid of the middle man. > Thank god abandoned or abused children aren't euthanized after 90 days > if no one adopts or reclaims them. Okay so abandoned children are treated one step above abandoned puppies & kittens in that respect. When anonymous abandonment becomes a socially acceptable, lawful way to relieve yourself of your parental responsibilities, then it will increase. If 'robbing' a bank became a legal way to obtain money you can be bet the number of desparate people who do it would increase. Kathy 1 > If they were "predisposed" to keeping their pets they probably wouldn't be > looking for a way to abandon their pets. Even less likely that if they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > didn't want their pets to use that instead of the Humane Society or finding > homes for their pets. That's certainly understandable, Kathy, but don't stop there. I think the issue of an anonymous drop box is really one of how many pets would be saved from being dropped off in the country (or worse) vs. those who would have been responsibly abandoned at the Humane Society (papers, shots, fees and all that jazz). >I actual have personal experience with a similiar > situation but I'll spare you the details ;) Were you dropped off in the country somewhere? > > I believe the comparison is flawed on several levels. I think > > "responsible" pet abandonment at a Human Society has more in common [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So let's put anonymous drop boxes at the adoption agencies and get rid of > the middle man. I very much prefer "responsible" relinquishment to anonymous abandonment. That being said, there are also fates worse than anonymous abandonment. Abuse, neglect, or simply being disposed of in the nearest receptacle, for instance. > > Thank god abandoned or abused children aren't euthanized after 90 days > > if no one adopts or reclaims them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > way to obtain money you can be bet the number of desparate people who do it > would increase. You're right, of course, if you want to equate relinquishment with robbing a bank. But the last time I checked, it didn't much matter if you left a forwarding address with the bank teller. Dad > > If they were "predisposed" to keeping their pets they probably wouldn't be > > looking for a way to abandon their pets. Even less likely that if they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > vs. those who would have been responsibly abandoned at the Humane > Society (papers, shots, fees and all that jazz). I just don't agree with that line of thought. People callous enough to drop their pet off on the side of the road with no care as to what is going to happen to it is not going to suddenly grow a conscience and drop them off at a drop box instead. The same thing with SH. > >I actual have personal experience with a similiar > > situation but I'll spare you the details ;) > > Were you dropped off in the country somewhere? > > > I believe the comparison is flawed on several levels. I think > > > "responsible" pet abandonment at a Human Society has more in common [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > abandonment. That being said, there are also fates worse than > anonymous abandonment. There are a lot of fates worse that *I* feel are worse than anonymous abandonment also (including rape, torture, paralysis, etc.). The list could go on and on but that doesn't somehow make anonymouse abandonment 'okay' because there are worse fates! Abuse, neglect, or simply being disposed of in > the nearest receptacle, for instance. Somebody callous enough to dispose of her newborn in a trash repcectacle is not going to use a SH. There is a serious case of mental disturbance going on there that isn't going to be reversed by this 'feel good' law. *That's* the the premise that is flawed. As for the other two, are you suggesting allowing anonymous abandonment for those guilty of abusing and/or neglecting their children? Why not allow it for anybody unable to cope with their children? That's really what society is saying with this law. "Unable to cope? Here's an easy way out" Thank god abandoned or abused children aren't euthanized after 90 days > > > if no one adopts or reclaims them. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're right, of course, if you want to equate relinquishment with > robbing a bank. I believe I was commenting on socially/legally acceptable behavior vs socially/legally unacceptable behavior. That covers a wide range of behavior - not just relinquishment & robbing a bank. > But the last time I checked, it didn't much matter if > you left a forwarding address with the bank teller. The last time I checked, money didn't mature and start caring where it came from or what it's health history is. Kathy 1 > > > > >> As long as the faux breeder market exists, SH wil lbe popular. > > > > >> Stigmatize [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > J. I'm sick and tired of laws which continue to make people who can do better irresponsible. If one doesn't want to leave their child a history....do the kid a favor, and get a damn abortion. Kathy > Babies > > are being returned, however. Half of the babies SH'd in Franklin County [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Or because the backers of SH's acytually want the babies to be safe, > and once they are, they have no problem returning them? > So far, it seems > 1. SH babies are safe. No dead SH babies yet (run over by fire-truck, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > DB Your points don't place the moral burden on those who oppose anonymous legal abandonment. 1. One wouldn't expect a Safe-Havened child to be killed in the process, although given the confusion over what is supposed to be done it may yet come to pass. 2. We don't really know what the nubmers are, but 120 or so have been dropped off in CA in the past 5 years, with no evidence that a single one of these children was Dumpster-bound at any time. Come back in 15 or 20 years and tell those kids that the burden was on the opposition to stop a hastily conceived program that stripped them of their identities, on the assumption that but for anonymous legal abandonment they would have been trashed. 3. Some states may have "regret periods". We have no idea how many parents regret their choices and don't know whether or how to reclaim their children. (One of the inherent problems with anonymous government programs.) Proponents of legalized anonymous abandonment (LAA) have never demonstrated a need for anonymity in the process. They assumed that a parent wouldn't act responsibily unless he or she could act anonymously, with no evidence to support the assumption. (In fact, they assumed that those who sent their children Dumpster-diving were acting rationally in the first place, an assumption that is more than a bit ludicrous on its face.) There still isn't any evidence that those who abandon children to die are thinking rationally at the time. We've had programs for the rational for a century or more. LAA is about feeling good about ourselves, about patting ourselves on the back for so cleverly solving the problem, without once looking at the underlying causes and taking a moment or spending a dollar to identify and address those causes for the long term. In other words, LAA is a cheat. J. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.