 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / February 2007New Bastardette: Feb.. 20, 2007
A new Bastardette has arrived: Massachusets: Potential killer moms take time out to turn in medical and social histories? http://bastardette.blogspot.com Marley > A new Bastardette has arrived: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Marley Your credibility has sunk below the lower mantle of the earth's crust. First you and your comrades cry and bemoan Baby Safe Haven laws because as you say they're "heritage strippers" and should not be passed, especially here in Massachusetts. Even when 13 babies are abandoned, 6 dead and 3/4 of them either heritage stripped or lost through death. Then when proper programs are put in place following the passage of the laws so that women can come forward at any time to give both the medical and family histories for their babies you weep and moan that the laws should be repealed. Which way do you want it??? We fought you and your groups for passage of Baby Safe Haven, fought for proper programs to encourage women to give backgrounds through counseling and confidentiality, and now you just sit on a supposed high horse and take pot shots at all involved for doing exactly what you so bitterly fought for. Your next "report" will again be written without a single jurisdictional authority's input, and just be more cheap shots. By the way, there's no "Baby Girl Dumped" or "Baby Beacon Hill." The last baby we named Baby IRIS, for Infant Relinquished In Safety. She's happy, healthy, and in a good home. Just like our granddaughter of almost the exact same age -- born days apart, she most likely is starting to sit up and eat solid foods. Sincerely, Ms Proud to be the "socialist jackboots" from MA www.babysafehavennewengland.com > > A new Bastardette has arrived: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Ms > Proud to be the "socialist jackboots" from MAwww.babysafehavennewengland.com You're either more ignorant or deeper into your pathology than I thought, Jeanne. Marley's point, which might have been more simply put, was this: if anonymity is a pre-requisite for an effective Safe Haven, how is it we have women leaving identifying information? It's a valid point. She also asked a number of direct and pertinent questions, none of which you attempted to answer. Is it because you can't or won't? If Safe Haven programs have the merit you claim, they should be able to withstand honest inquiry. So, riddle me this, please: Anonymity is the heart of the dispute over Safe Haven laws. Why is anonymity required for a successful Safe Haven program? J. >>> A new Bastardette has arrived: >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > J. Kind of how I see it too Jeanne , of course I'm a long way from Massachusetts at the moment and about all I know about the place is the jokes my adopted granddad used to make about his false teeth. So maybe I'm missing something. I don't think anyone objects to the idea that a mother even 16 yearold mother might want to keep the pregnancy and birth a secret from her family her classmates her future partner or any other disinterested parties. The primary objectionable factor in it all is the secrecy toward someone who is not a disinterested party, the child she is "Safe Havening". Why can't a mother be guaranteed that no one other than her child (or its descendants and siblings and in appropriate circumstances a legal 'next friend', oh and perhaps its father subject to DNA evidence), will ever have a right to access details of its relinquishment to "Safe Havening" and her name? Why could she not equally well relinquish her baby under those conditions, to an established registered adoption agency without fear of anyone other than her child (or its descendants and siblings and in appropriate circumstances a legal 'next friend' and perhaps its father subject to DNA evidence) having a right to what ever information she gives? Is not a fact that what you find so attractive about TOTAL anonymity is that it makes "Safe Havened" babies a whole more attractive to adoptive parents of a certain mindset who like to play, ' lets pretend we conceived it' or who want a guarantee that it's never going be able to find its family? That it's not going to be able to find its genetic and social heritage, no matter how your local adoption laws might change in the future with regard to adoptee access to records? If you have properly run adoption agencies or social services that observe the mother's right to confidentiality, then why would you need a "Safe Haven" system that so callously disregards the human rights of any child surrendered to it? You've still not satisfactorily answered the questions that I have about the health and welfare of the mother concerned, remembering that you advocate all "Safe Haven" Schemes, not just those in Massachusetts. Robin Harritt (that ignorant bastard in the UK) http://harritt.eu >>> A new Bastardette has arrived: >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > J. Kind of how I see it too Jeanne , of course I'm a long way from Massachusetts at the moment and about all I know about the place is the jokes my adopted granddad used to make about his false teeth. So maybe I'm missing something. I don't think anyone objects to the idea that a mother even 16 yearold mother might want to keep the pregnancy and birth a secret from her family her classmates her future partner or any other disinterested parties. The primary objectionable factor in it all is the secrecy toward someone who is not a disinterested party, the child she is "Safe Havening". Why can't a mother be guaranteed that no one other than her child (or its descendants and siblings and in appropriate circumstances a legal 'next friend', oh and perhaps its father subject to DNA evidence), will ever have a right to access details of its relinquishment to "Safe Havening" and her name? Why could she not equally well relinquish her baby under those conditions, to an established registered adoption agency without fear of anyone other than her child (or its descendants and siblings and in appropriate circumstances a legal 'next friend' and perhaps its father subject to DNA evidence) having a right to what ever information she gives? Is not a fact that what you find so attractive about TOTAL anonymity is that it makes "Safe Havened" babies a whole more attractive to adoptive parents of a certain mindset who like to play, ' lets pretend we conceived it' or who want a guarantee that it's never going be able to find its family? That it's not going to be able to find its genetic and social heritage, no matter how your local adoption laws might change in the future with regard to adoptee access to records? If you have properly run adoption agencies or social services that observe the mother's right to confidentiality, then why would you need a "Safe Haven" system that so callously disregards the human rights of any child surrendered to it? You've still not satisfactorily answered the questions that I have about the health and welfare of the mother concerned, remembering that you advocate all "Safe Haven" Schemes, not just those in Massachusetts. Robin Harritt (that ignorant bastard in the UK) http://harritt.eu >Marley's point, which might have been more simply > put, was this: if anonymity is a pre-requisite for an effective Safe > Haven, how is it we have women leaving identifying information? It's > a valid point. > > J. It's so simple that everyone seems to get it, but some of you. Because the laws grant immunity from prosecution women are much more likely to come back following their crisis and give authorities, and confidential counselors, the medical backgrounds and full adoption contracts. Prior to the passage of the MA Baby Safe Haven law the crisis in half of the cases lead to deaths of the newborns, and another four lead to anonymity due to the fear of prosecution. Remember that many of the deadly newborn abandonments took that anonymity to the grave. So we can only surmise that you are calling for a repeal of all Baby Safe Haven laws, and going back to half of abandonments being deadly, and another half of newborns having their heritages/medical records stripped forever due to anonymous dangerous abandonments. And lets not forget the long term health issues of babies who suffer the dangerous abandonments and are not found before serious health complications. Your positions are clear. Ours is even more clear, Baby Safe Havens works. Ms. www.babysafehavennewengland.com > >Marley's point, which might have been more simply > > put, was this: if anonymity is a pre-requisite for an effective Safe [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Ours is even more clear, Baby Safe Havens works. > Ms.www.babysafehavennewengland.com Care to address the rest of my post, or are you prepared to admit that you can't make a case for anonymity that's based on more than supposition? J. >Marley's point, which might have been more simply > put, was this: if anonymity is a pre-requisite for an effective Safe > Haven, how is it we have women leaving identifying information? It's > a valid point. > > J. >It's so simple that everyone seems to get it, but some of you. >Because the laws grant immunity from prosecution women are much more >likely to come back following their crisis and give authorities, and >confidential counselors, the medical backgrounds and full adoption >contracts. Oh really? And do you have anything to back this up? Has this actually happened? Got a cite?  SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 >Marley's point, which might have been more simply > put, was this: if anonymity is a pre-requisite for an effective Safe > Haven, how is it we have women leaving identifying information? It's > a valid point. > > J. It's so simple that everyone seems to get it, but some of you. Because the laws grant immunity from prosecution women are much more likely to come back following their crisis and give authorities, and confidential counselors, the medical backgrounds and full adoption contracts. No, not everyone "gets" it. The adoption reform community doesn't get it. Adoption lawyers and scholars don't get it." Adoptees don't "get" it. Natural parents don't "get" it. As someone who is not intimately involved in adoption and how it works why do you think you "get" it? We don't go around telling you how to prodoce an ESPN sho . Why should you tell us what sound childcare is. The only people who "get" it by your standards are slimy politicians and those who make money off the misery of others. Just why do you think that every child placement agency in Mass opposed your bill? For example The Home for Little Wanderers and The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children?. Could it be because you're trying to turn the clock back 100 years? You're trying to maintain the Culture of Shame? Prior to the passage of the MA Baby Safe Haven law the crisis in half of the cases lead to deaths of the newborns, and another four lead to anonymity due to the fear of prosecution. Well, I have a list. I'll post mine if you post yours. Why, btw, do you continue to include the hoax abandonment in Swansea? Remember that many of the deadly newborn abandonments took that anonymity to the grave. So we can only surmise that you are calling for a repeal of all Baby Safe Haven laws, and going back to half of abandonments being deadly, and another half of newborns having their heritages/medical records stripped forever due to anonymous dangerous abandonments. And lets not forget the long term health issues of babies who suffer the dangerous abandonments and are not found before serious health complications. Your positions are clear. Ours is even more clear, Baby Safe Havens works. Ms. www.babysafehavennewengland.com I want to go back to a time when the state didn't promote unsound and unsafe child welfare and adoption practices. I want to see a time when adoptee persons are treated with dignity and have the same rights as the unadopted not to be chattel in some weird self-promotion gig of yours. I want to see a time when dads are treated as part of the family. historically, whenever legal abandonment laws or practices exist, the rate of abandonment--and death-- goes up. (Italy, France, Russia and England, for instance). Nothing has changed with your laws except to tell people it's OK to abandon their kids. Marley > I want to go back to a time when the state didn't promote unsound and unsafe > child welfare and adoption practices. I want to see a time when adoptee [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Marley England, Marley? We do still have the Section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which makes it a criminal offence to abandon a child under the age of two. It is rarely used, because when a baby is abandoned here everyone cares about that and huge efforts are always made to find the mother and help rather than prosecute her. Unless of course she has deliberately attempted to conceal the infant to prevent it being found or otherwise abandoned it in a dangerous way. We don't have any "Safe Haven" laws here, though some police departments would like them introduced, most social service are against them however, I believe. Germany on the other hand should be on your list. Robin (the great deity, Robin of England) >> I want to go back to a time when the state didn't promote unsound and >> unsafe [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > (the great deity, Robin of England) I'm going back several hundred years to the time of the babywheels, though I'm not so sure they were common in England. You got Corham's, though And baby farming even in Victorian times. Of course, Protestant Europe handled things somewhat differently since their devotion to the Holy Mother was a bit less (along other things). I've never quite gotten the hang of England being Protestant. More Catholic-lite. Anyway, it appears to me that current US adoption practice is highly RCC oriented in their PR scam, though they'd never admit it. Very much tied to Catholic female redemption and not Protestant accountability. And SH is about redemption. Marley > Anonymity is the heart of the dispute over Safe Haven laws. Why is > anonymity required for a successful Safe Haven program? I think there seems to be two elements to SH: One is immunity from prosecution (which does not in itself require anonymity) and the second is the anonymity (which presumably would imply immunity from prosecution). It seems to me that the value of the anonymity is in giving control to the mother. She can relinquish the child in secrecy, knowing that no one is going to call her, write to her home, show up on her door-step or otherwise let family and friends know anything about it. At the time, she knows she can leave it at that. However, since she probably doesn't need anonymity from the infant, she can come back at a safe time and leave information. Again, knowing that her anonymity will be protected. I would guess that someone who is SHing rather than going through the normal channels is operating out of fear. Most likely fear of family, whether parents, step-parents, husband or SO. Or possibly fear of social censure. Obviously, this is a difficult thing to research. But if the majority of SHd kids are going to have their histories available - they may be doing better than normal relinquishees in closed adoptions. >> Anonymity is the heart of the dispute over Safe Haven laws. Why is >> anonymity required for a successful Safe Haven program? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > available - they may be doing better than normal relinquishees in > closed adoptions. The question is, do we know this to actually be the case? Is it true that the majority of SHd kids ARE going to have their histories available? Or is this just wishful thinking? SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the majority of SHd kids ARE going to have their histories available? Or is > this just wishful thinking? How can we know? My own feeling is that the numbers are so small that in the end, it's not going to be a huge deal either way. We're talking about a handful of kids. I wonder if in the end the Sue Tretter solution - DNA records - will make the whole thing academic anyway. On Feb 21, 10:48 am, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Last I heard, the number of abandonees was around 800. A handful in the context of the 300 million or so in this country, but the size of many small towns in my part of the world. I don't imagine an abandonee is going to care much that he or she was only one of a handful whose origins were denied them by a process that is speculative at best. J. > > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > in the end, it's not going to be a huge deal either way. We're talking > about a handful of kids. And as Marley so aptly stated - history has shown that when legal abandonment exists - abandonment increases. Kathy 1 > And as Marley so aptly stated - history has shown that when legal > abandonment exists - abandonment increases. Possibly true, but does child abuse or infanticide decrease? In other words, what kind of parent is a potential abandoner going to make anyway? On Feb 24, 11:24?pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > And as Marley so aptly stated - history has shown that when legal > > abandonment exists - abandonment increases. > > Possibly true, but does child abuse or infanticide decrease? > In other words, what kind of parent is a potential abandoner going to > make anyway? Am I reading this right, Rupa? Kathy > On Feb 24, 11:24?pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> > wrote: > > Possibly true, but does child abuse or infanticide decrease? > > In other words, what kind of parent is a potential abandoner going to > > make anyway? > > Am I reading this right, Rupa? Maybe? What I am suggesting is that someone who is likely to abandon her baby is probably unlikely to have the resources to raise a child, raising the risk of abuse, neglect, and child death. In other words, not having a way to abandon a child physically doesn't magically turn the child into a wanted child or the woman into a devoted mother. I am not speaking here of mothers who make an adoption plan for their babies, who want their babies to have a good life, who may not be in a position to parent the child but want it to be raised by people who are and will. I am talking of mothers whose primary concern is to be free of the baby. I would suggest there's a qualitative difference. And babies are fragile. It doesn't take much of a screw-up to damage or kill one. Today's new had a story about a baby left in a plastic bag. The mother had two other kids and didn't want this one. No one knows why she didn't SH. Anyway, the kid is alive, thanks to a dog-walker who found him. >> On Feb 24, 11:24?pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Am I reading this right, Rupa? As far as we can tell, neonaticde rates have not changed. A records request to every county coroner in California that covered a 10 year period showed no change. > Maybe? What I am suggesting is that someone who is likely to abandon > her baby is probably unlikely to have the resources to raise a child, > raising the risk of abuse, neglect, and child death. But resources do not determine mothering good or bad. > In other words, not having a way to abandon a child physically doesn't > magically turn the child into a wanted child or the woman into a > devoted mother. No, but SH is promoted as a "loving choice." It's a consumer plan. From anecdotal evidence (since everything is a secret) in a good number of cases, the surrendering parent believes that this is the way to surrender a child for adoption--instead of setting themselves up for being sued in an adversarial case in juv court, in which they will be determined negligent. Babies repeatedly show up in cute little onesies with toys, diapers and formula. Some show up in strollers. And some are left off mom, or even families in tears. At no time are the counseling on public and private programs to assist them in parenting skills, keeping the kid, or ethical adoption readily available. And once the baby is in the system, it can be difficult to get the kid back, expensive for the poor and dangerous for illegals. > I am not speaking here of mothers who make an adoption plan for their > babies, who want their babies to have a good life, who may not be in a > position to parent the child but want it to be raised by people who > are and will. I understand that, and I agree. > I am talking of mothers whose primary concern is to be free of the > baby. I would suggest there's a qualitative difference. And babies are > fragile. It doesn't take much of a screw-up to damage or kill one. Today's new had a story about a o you ctually think she'd have used a SH. That's not the SH profile. Marley On Feb 26, 10:50 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > As far as we can tell, neonaticde rates have not changed. A records request > to every county coroner in California that covered a 10 year period showed > no change. That's useful to know. So potential homicidal parents are not apparently using this SH as a safety valve. > > Maybe? What I am suggesting is that someone who is likely to abandon > > her baby is probably unlikely to have the resources to raise a child, > > raising the risk of abuse, neglect, and child death. > > But resources do not determine mothering good or bad. I'd suggest that a minimum level of resources - not the least, social, emotional and psychological resources as much as economic ones - are a prerequisite for successful parenting. Not sufficient, but necessary. > No, but SH is promoted as a "loving choice." It's a consumer plan. From > anecdotal evidence (since everything is a secret) in a good number of cases, > the surrendering parent believes that this is the way to surrender a child > for adoption--instead of setting themselves up for being sued in an > adversarial case in juv court, in which they will be determined negligent. Didn't quite understand this. DId you mean that SH saves b-moms from the adversarial case, or that it creates the adversarial case, unbeknownst to the b-mom? > Babies repeatedly show up in cute little onesies with toys, diapers and > formula. Some show up in strollers. And some are left off mom, or even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > difficult to get the kid back, expensive for the poor and dangerous for > illegals. So perhaps this is what is required as well. Better counselling (voluntary but free) on other options. And perhaps SHs should be set up as just that - SHs. With the mother able to recover the child within a period of, say, 30 days, after which she will be considered to have reliquished. As it is, you said a number of SHd babies are returned to their mothers, even though in theory the legal process is difficult. Do we know of any case where a mother SHd the kid and wanted it back and didn't get it? We certainly have heard it about relinquished kids. > Today's new had a story about a o you ctually think she'd have used a SH. > That's not the SH profile. I can believe it. There was a kid abandoned in California a few days ago, found alive in a plastic bag in the bushes. They tracked down the mother within hours. She said she didn't know SH was an option. I presume it was, though apparently CA has a 3 day limit and it wasn't clear how old the kid was. Under a week, anyway. Another case of a concealed pregnancy. > On Feb 26, 10:50 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's useful to know. So potential homicidal parents are not > apparently using this SH as a safety valve. Exactly. >> > Maybe? What I am suggesting is that someone who is likely to abandon >> > her baby is probably unlikely to have the resources to raise a child, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > emotional and psychological resources as much as economic ones - are a > prerequisite for successful parenting. Not sufficient, but necessary. That would leave out most of the population! >> No, but SH is promoted as a "loving choice." It's a consumer plan. From >> anecdotal evidence (since everything is a secret) in a good number of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the adversarial case, or that it creates the adversarial case, > unbeknownst to the b-mom? No in creates the adversarial situation legally. It depends on how each state's laws are written and where SH is placed in the code, but in many states, the parent(s) is deemed the defendant in a neglect hearing--which is adversarial. There is absolutely nothing in the promotional literature that I've ever seen that mentions that by SH'ing your kid you'll be sued by the state. >> Babies repeatedly show up in cute little onesies with toys, diapers and >> formula. Some show up in strollers. And some are left off mom, or even [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > returned to their mothers, even though in theory the legal process is > difficult. Those options are already available--temporary fostercare. People use them all the time with no legal ramifications. > Do we know of any case where a mother SHd the kid and wanted it back > and didn't get it? > We certainly have heard it about relinquished kids. Not that I know of, but we wouldn't know since the proceedings are secret. In Dayton a juv court judge, for instance, barred the Dayton Daily News from attending hearing (they'd covered the case and even identified the full hew name given the baby by officials" and perhaps knew the name of the mother, but didn't publish it) and put a gag order on all parties. I think she got the kid back, though. It appears that the state finds it easier to just return the kids rather than face a constitutional challenge if they don't. And once somebody has their kid, they're going to get all altruistic and bring a suit against the state for putting this in motion. All it will take is one educated dad with the means to do it, and the law is gone. Adoption and due process lawyers I've heard speak are in agreement on this. >> Today's new had a story about a o you ctually think she'd have used a >> SH. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > clear how old the kid was. Under a week, anyway. Another case of a > concealed pregnancy. I think the baby fell in the time constraints. And then there's the woman in Arizona who knew all about the state's law and buried her baby alive. Marley On Feb 27, 4:27 pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > It depends on how each > state's laws are written and where SH is placed in the code, but in many > states, the parent(s) is deemed the defendant in a neglect hearing--which > is adversarial. There is absolutely nothing in the promotional literature > that I've ever seen that mentions that by SH'ing your kid you'll be sued by > the state. That's very interesting. It's not the impression I've gotten. > Those options are already available--temporary fostercare. People use them > all the time with no legal ramifications. How's it done? If someone wants temp foster care? How easy is it to get the kid back? And will the state seek to recover expenses? Can SH be considered temporary foster care until a certain period of time has expired, after which the kid is freed for adoption? > > Do we know of any case where a mother SHd the kid and wanted it back > > and didn't get it? > > We certainly have heard it about relinquished kids. It appears that the state finds it easier to just > return the kids rather than face a constitutional challenge if they don't. And probably because the state doesn't want the kid, anyway. It's not an adoption agency. If the kid can be moved back to its parent/s, one less hassle for the state. > I think the baby fell in the time constraints. And then there's the woman > in Arizona who knew all about the state's law and buried her baby alive. I didn't see that one. Did she say why? > > And as Marley so aptly stated - history has shown that when legal > > abandonment exists - abandonment increases. > > Possibly true, but does child abuse or infanticide decrease? > In other words, what kind of parent is a potential abandoner going to > make anyway? Well since so many think that it is a 'loving choice' apparently she would be a very good parent. Kathy 1 > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well since so many think that it is a 'loving choice' apparently she would > be a very good parent. I thought that referred to making an adoption plan for a baby. Anyway - "love is not enough." > > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I thought that referred to making an adoption plan for a baby. You mean you haven't seen all the various SH advocates lauding the mothers who leave their babies there? > Anyway - "love is not enough." Right. No support for the mother who SHs her kid - not before the event to help her explore her options nor after. Just a mindless, imo, advocation of it being just another option to an unplanned pregnancy. Kathy 1 > Right. No support for the mother who SHs her kid - not before the event to > help her explore her options nor after. Just a mindless, imo, advocation of > it being just another option to an unplanned pregnancy. She's got to reach out for the support. Though there probably isn't enough available. But what's the option if she doesn't want family or others to know? >> in the end, it's not going to be a huge deal either way. We're talking >> about a handful of kids. > > And as Marley so aptly stated - history has shown that when legal > abandonment exists - abandonment increases. If that's the case, that could end up being a good thing for the children who are abandoned. It could be the difference between a neglected, unloving childhood with parents who don't want the child and being raised in a warm, loving, nurturing family. Assuming, of course, that once you factor out women who put their children up for adoption the traditional way, and those who follow the spirit of the safe haven laws, that the remainder of the supposed increase in abandonment would be from girls/women/parents who just don't want their child. SignatureMichael Fierro (aka Biffster) biffster@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com http://aperfectworld.biffster.org Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1 -- "When you participate in sporting events, it's not whether you win or lose! It's how drunk you get" --Homer On Feb 20, 10:47 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > It seems to me that the value of the anonymity is in giving control to > the mother. Depends, I think. It could also give control to those who have control over the mother. > On Feb 20, 10:47 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Depends, I think. > It could also give control to those who have control over the mother. Isn't that exactly what it's doing? It's certainly will not give any long term control to the mother. As Rupa and Ms Tretter before her have pointed out, by the time the kid grows up we'll all be on a DNA database somewhere. Or more likely on dozens of them. It does entirely take away her immediate control as soon as the kid's placed for adoption, if I understand it correctly. Robin * > in article 1172078516.567828.5...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, > kippaherr...@hotmail.com at kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote on 21/2/07 17:21: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Robin The question really is, does the mother need or want long-term control? In 20 years, the players in this girl or woman's life may be quite different, and she herself may be quite different. She may not have the same concerns and fears she has right now. I would expect the point of the SH to be the *immediate* solution to an immediate problem - here's a newborn baby, what do I do with it when I dare not tell my stepdad/ boyfriend/ stepmom/ parents/ husband? If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a reasonable period, if there's a mechanism by which she can come back and do a proper relinquishment, or if she prefers not, then by which she can leave a history for the child, then it's functioning as an emergency solution. Once the emergency is over, she can deal with it in a better way if she chooses. On Feb 21, 2:20 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > The question really is, does the mother need or want long-term > control? With legalized anonymous abandonment (I can no longer even bring myself to call them 'safe havens') it's very possible it isn't her who wants to relinquish (or does the dumping, even), cares about anonymity - or about control either, at least in the sense that I think you mean. There's too much going on here that's unanswerable. > The question really is, does the mother need or want long-term > control? In 20 years, the players in this girl or woman's life may be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Rupa, You're right on the money! Ms www.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com J's absolutely right that the "if it saves one" argument is insufficient to justify such laws, and that at some point we have to weigh their relative good and harm without simply assuming that depriving an unspecifiable number of individuals of their birthright is worth the possible saving of a life. > > The question really is, does the mother need or want long-term > > control? In 20 years, the players in this girl or woman's life may be > > quite different, and she herself may be quite different. She may not > > have the same concerns and fears she has right now. Indeed. She may be haunted by concern for the child she gave birth to years ago. > > I would expect the point of the SH to be the *immediate* solution to > > an immediate problem - here's a newborn baby, what do I do with it > > when I dare not tell my stepdad/ boyfriend/ stepmom/ parents/ > > husband? I'd like to point out that it may not always be HER choice of 'solution'. Sometimes the problem belongs to the others, like the people you mention above. SHs provide a wonderful opportunity for in-family coercion. I know of more than a few cases where I can say, with as much certainty as I've ever felt about anything, that the parents of the young mother would have been *delighted* to have been given the opportunity of delivering her child to a legalized dumpster in lieu of conventional adoption. No blame, no shame, no trace. > > If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a reasonable > > period, if there's a mechanism by which she can come back and do a > > proper relinquishment, or if she prefers not, then by which she can > > leave a history for the child, then it's functioning as an emergency > > solution. Once the emergency is over, she can deal with it in a better > > way if she chooses.- Hide quoted text - >From what I hear it's not that easy to reclaim a dumpee. Curiously, post dumping, some sort of stigma seems to attach itself. Wonder why? > > - Show quoted text - > > Rupa, > You're right on the money! Now you mention it, money . . . > Mswww.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com On Feb 22, 8:05 am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > Indeed. She may be haunted by concern for the child she gave birth to > years ago. In which case, she can go on the net and register as a searching birthmother. A SH'd baby, more than most, would know the circumstances of its relinquishment, and there may even be photos of smiling firemen and so on. If she posts a message saying something like "I left you with the kind firemen at Station X in 200X" it would not be that tough to connect the dots. > > > I would expect the point of the SH to be the *immediate* solution to > > > an immediate problem - here's a newborn baby, what do I do with it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mention above. > SHs provide a wonderful opportunity for in-family coercion. It's true, they do. But then they also provide an opportunity for the same girl, if she has been coerced, to go back quietly and provide her details without her coercive family knowing about it. > > > If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a reasonable > > > period, if there's a mechanism by which she can come back and do a > > > proper relinquishment, or if she prefers not, then by which she can > > > leave a history for the child, then it's functioning as an emergency > > > solution. Once the emergency is over, she can deal with it in a better > > > way if she chooses.- Hide quoted text - > >From what I hear it's not that easy to reclaim a dumpee. > > Curiously, post dumping, some sort of stigma seems to attach itself. > Wonder why? I rather suspect it's easier to reclaim a dumpee than a relinquishee. Depends on the state, I guess. And what their revocation requirements are. > Now you mention it, money . . . I'd expect that if money is involved, it's less than usual. No birthmother expenses. The kid goes into the State system and is presumably adopted from it. Baby care expenses prior to adoption paid by the taxpayer. Unless the state is then moving the babies into the private adoption system and they're profiting off of it. On Feb 22, 6:59 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > On Feb 22, 8:05 am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the kind firemen at Station X in 200X" it would not be that tough > to connect the dots. You conjure up a pretty picture. One that's far from a cert though. I imagine the "shame and blame" of having dumped all those years ago would have done their damage rather well. I can't help thinking a dumper would find the idea of explaining themselves rather daunting. And the dumpee might feel rather - well, dumped. Doesn't really bode well, to my mind. > > > > I would expect the point of the SH to be the *immediate* solution to > > > > an immediate problem - here's a newborn baby, what do I do with it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > has been coerced, to go back quietly and provide her details without > her coercive family knowing about it. Theoretically perhaps, but in practice unlikely, IMO. If she really has has been coerced, she's going to be stringently supervised by whoever pressured her. > > > > If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a reasonable > > > > period, if there's a mechanism by which she can come back and do a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I rather suspect it's easier to reclaim a dumpee than a relinquishee. > Depends on the state, I guess. And what their revocation requirements are. I don't think all states have provisions for reclaiming the child. And where they do exist, I think it's generally for a 14 day period. > > Now you mention it, money . . . > > I'd expect that if money is involved, it's less than usual. No > birthmother expenses. The kid goes into the State system and is > presumably adopted from it. Baby care expenses prior to adoption paid > by the taxpayer. Bargain babies. Just the thing to launch the remodelled Filene's Basement when it opens. They could have a dumpster there too. That would cut down on overheads. On Feb 22, 8:16 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Feb 22, 6:59 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> > wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 8:05 am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > You conjure up a pretty picture. One that's far from a cert though. > I imagine the "shame and blame" of having dumped all those years ago [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And the dumpee might feel rather - well, dumped. > Doesn't really bode well, to my mind. Probably a risk in any relinquishment. If the b-mom feels she used the SH because that was what she needed to do at the time, she will be able to explain it. If she feels guilty, there's the possibility she would have felt the same way in a regular relinquishment. And as for the relinquishee - yes, possibly they'd feel dumped. But then some feel that way no matter how they were reliquished - particularly if there are kept kids near in age. > Theoretically perhaps, but in practice unlikely, IMO. > If she really has has been coerced, she's going to be stringently > supervised by whoever pressured her. How stringently can she be supervised if she's going to school, college, or work? She can go back and give that information days, weeks, or months later. > > > > > If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a reasonable > > > > > period, if there's a mechanism by which she can come back and do a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't think all states have provisions for reclaiming the child. > And where they do exist, I think it's generally for a 14 day period. You may be right. I don't know much about it but for what I've read here. I wonder if states have aligned it with the revocation periods on relinquishment. > Bargain babies. > Just the thing to launch the remodelled Filene's Basement when it > opens. > They could have a dumpster there too. That would cut down on > overheads. You would rather place them with Sotheby's or Christie's? > On Feb 22, 8:16 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: >> On Feb 22, 6:59 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > able to explain it. If she feels guilty, there's the possibility she > would have felt the same way in a regular relinquishment. I think you're living in la-la land on this one, Rupa. That's not the way it works. It takes decades to work through this crap--if ever. We've seen enough of it here. My God! My bmom was still guilty 50 years later and still couldn't talk about what happened. > And as for the relinquishee - yes, possibly they'd feel dumped. But > then some feel that way no matter how they were reliquished - > particularly if there are kept kids near in age. Being "surrendered" for adoption with papers is auite a bit different than being dumped on a hospital counter with nothing. >> Theoretically perhaps, but in practice unlikely, IMO. >> If she really has has been coerced, she's going to be stringently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > She can go back and give that information days, weeks, or months > later. Why do kids who have been kidnapped stay with their captors when they have chances to contact authorities or escape? It's all about pschology. >> > > > > If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a >> > > > > reasonable [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> I don't think all states have provisions for reclaiming the child. >> And where they do exist, I think it's generally for a 14 day period. It's difficult. And it can be expensive. In Ohio the dumper must pay for a DNA test which runs over $500. S/he must also show up in court. There is nothing in Ohio's SH promotion that mentions court. It jumps from dump to adoption, like nothing else happens. I doubt if the average person, much less a dumper knows how the adoption prcoess works. The parent)s) must also undergo all investigation, parenting classs, etc. Unless the dumper contacts social services (or the hospital which shoujld eer her to SS) and says she wants her kid back, she has no way of knowing she has a court appearance(s) which she should attend. What happens is that she defaults her own hearing. Juv. Court dockets are not public record. They do not appear in the Daily Reporter, online, or on the door of the hearing room. There is no way, if she suspected a hearing, to check on them.. But chances are she doesn't even know about the court proceedings to start with. The only reasonable way anybody would know about the hearing is by hiring a lawyer or having the know-how to call SS. And often those with SS experience won't contact them. That's not to say that some aren't returned. According to the Columbus Dispatch 4 of the 8 SHs in Franklin County were returned to the parent(s) or kin. I talked to the reporter who wrote the article and that's all she could pry out of FCSS. Ineed to yank their chain. It appears though that babies are returned because nobody wants to deal with a lawsuit which would probably overturn Ohio's law which numerous adoption lawyers here says blatantly unconstitutional. So rather than face a constitutional challenge it's easier to give the kid back. And since the parent(s) is only interested in getting the kid, they won't pursue the larger issue, which imo, is public right. It will happen though, and I think it will come from an educated and informed jerked-around dad (a husband or an adjudicatead dad) who won't let the matter go to easily, even if he gets his kid. The day of mom's right to control the destiny of her kids is about over. > You may be right. I don't know much about it but for what I've read > here. > I wonder if states have aligned it with the revocation periods on > relinquishment. Each state is different. >> Bargain babies. >> Just the thing to launch the remodelled Filene's Basement when it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You would rather place them with Sotheby's or Christie's? > You conjure up a pretty picture. One that's far from a cert though. > I imagine the "shame and blame" of having dumped all those years ago [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And the dumpee might feel rather - well, dumped. > Doesn't really bode well, to my mind. This could be true whether the child has been given up through Safe Haven or via adoption, though. For at least a percentage of birth mothers, there's going to be guilt about giving up their child, no matter how good the reasons nor the circumstances for how they were given up. SignatureMichael Fierro (aka Biffster) biffster@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com http://aperfectworld.biffster.org Y!: miguelito_fierro AIM: mfierro1 -- "You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride" >> You conjure up a pretty picture. One that's far from a cert though. >> I imagine the "shame and blame" of having dumped all those years ago [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > going to be guilt about giving up their child, no matter how good the > reasons nor the circumstances for how they were given up. True, but at least in my case, my bmom did some research and picked the adoption agency that I was relinquished to. That takes a bit more of an effort than dropping off a kid at a fire station and walking away. SignatureRobyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 On Feb 23, 1:19 pm, Michael Fierro <biffs...@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com> counter-ranted thusly: > On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:16 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com ranted on > thusly: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > going to be guilt about giving up their child, no matter how good the > reasons nor the circumstances for how they were given up. It's far likely to be the case where a child has been dumped anonymously. Skulkingly. Furtively. It's common knowledge that secrecy breeds shame. On Feb 23, 5:28 pm, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Feb 23, 1:19 pm, Michael Fierro <biffs...@NOSPAM-REALLYgmail.com> For at least a percentage of birth mothers, there's > > going to be guilt about giving up their child, no matter how good the > > reasons nor the circumstances for how they were given up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Skulkingly. Furtively. > It's common knowledge that secrecy breeds shame. It is? Unless you call it privately, discreetly, carefully, anonymously. The skulking and furtive part of it is spin. Not necessarily erroneous, but then again not how either the b-mom or her offspring will necessarily view it. > On Feb 22, 8:05 am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the kind firemen at Station X in 200X" it would not be that tough > to connect the dots. Possibly, but any adoptees don't think like that. Many would consider themselves throw-aways and not want contact with the person who tossed them--legally or otherwise. Reunionism forces people to seek "reunion" even if they don't want it, just get information >> > > I would expect the point of the SH to be the *immediate* solution to >> > > an immediate problem - here's a newborn baby, what do I do with it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > has been coerced, to go back quietly and provide her details without > her coercive family knowing about it. Again possibly, but do you think that someone who is so afraid and so coerced is going to go back? We have generations of nmoms testifying today how were pushed into adoption and told they had no right to try to contact the kid in the future. The closed secret dump system continues that stigma and fear. Debbe Magnusson from Project Cuddle is in involved in real baby/mom saving and she says something like half of her clients are adopted or have some kind of relationship with the fostercare/child welfare system and they are afraid of it and don't trust it. >> > > If the SH provides for her to regain the child within a reasonable >> > > period, if there's a mechanism by which she can come back and do a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Depends on the state, I guess. And what their revocation requirements > are. In most states SH is not an adoption surrender. By safe havening a kid the parent(s) has declared herself negligent and the case is handled by the juv. court procedure. If she has other kept children and she comes forward to retrieve, she is in danger of losing them because of this negligence charge. Nobod talks about this. Now you mention it, money . . . > I'd expect that if money is involved, it's less than usual. No > birthmother expenses. The kid goes into the State system and is > presumably adopted from it. Baby care expenses prior to adoption paid > by the taxpayer. Unless the state is then moving the babies into the > private adoption system and they're profiting off of it. Tell that to the state of Texas who is stuck paying an enormous amount of money for a veggie baby that was safe havened in which the mom purposefully didn't seek prenatal care and planned to SH it. Taxpayers are paying plenty for these cases. Marley > On Feb 22, 8:05 am, kippaherr...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the kind firemen at Station X in 200X" it would not be that tough > to connect the dots. ". .not be that tough to connect the dots."??? Rupa you do live in a fantasy world at times. People with actual information are often unable to trace bparents. I hardly think that something that might not even be repated factually over time is going to be useful in reuniting a baby dumped in such a manner. Kathy 1 > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > repated factually over time is going to be useful in reuniting a baby > dumped in such a manner. I dunno. The one thing that an SHd person will know is where they were SHd. That at least doesn't seem to be confidential - if anything, it's publicized. It's also a fairly rare event. Given that, and assuming the continued existence of the web, I don't imagine it would be that tough for a b-mom to trace her SHd kid. Assuming of course that the "kid" wants to be found. And maybe even if it doesn't. >> <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > tough for a b-mom to trace her SHd kid. Assuming of course that the > "kid" wants to be found. And maybe even if it doesn't. Not necessarily. As I pointed out, in Iowa the state won't even release the city where an event takes place (except for DesMoines.) Newspaper reports of events is spotty and some states don't report cases in the media. I haven't worked on my Cal. stats lately but there is no way that the number of incidents reported by the press equal the number of events the state claims. Interestingly the kitchen table SHers seem to be privy to information that the general public isn't. I have no idea if states would reveal information to those who are SH'd and adopted (or even if they aren't adopted.) The NJ open records proposal specifically denies access to information to the adopted. How strict that would actually be interpreted, is hard to say. Sealed records for SH are the default in that specific bill, though we know that there are a number of ID's SH in other states. and probably in NJ. Someone who is adopted in NJ (or some other state that may pass similar legislation), and was SH'd and doesn't know they were SH'd , may think they can access their records, but will get a surprise when they try. Marley On Feb 20, 9:47 pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > Anonymity is the heart of the dispute over Safe Haven laws. Why is > > anonymity required for a successful Safe Haven program? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > available - they may be doing better than normal relinquishees in > closed adoptions. I understand the argument, Rupa. If I had evidence that women who kill or leave their children to die were thinking rationally, I might accept the premise. But infanticide, direct or indirect, does not appear to me to be a rational act. Simply assuming that it is necessary, or even helpful, is not enough to warrrant anonymous abandonment, IMO. Although some insist that it is all worthwhile if only one life is saved, that position does not reflect the world in which we live. We make calculated sacrifices every day, whether it be in setting permissible levels of toxic materials or deciding to construct a building of a certain height, knowing that every floor we add increases the risk of death for someone. At some point, we must weigh the relative good and harm of these laws. In doing so, we can't simply assume that depriving X abandoned persons of their origins is worth the possibilty that a life may be saved. We have an extremely elaborate privacy act here in Minnesota, which makes certain government maintained data on individuals accessible only to the subject of the data. I see no reason why the identities of those abandoning a child cannot be protected in this fashion, with the data available to the child on reaching majority under the same conditions governing an adoptee's access to birth records. (I'd prefer unrestricted access by adoptees to those records, obviously.) This would alleviate many of the problems with the current system, by permitting cross-referencing with a putative father registry, among other things. I witnessed an odd thing today as I strolled the aisles of my local Target: a young woman on her cell phone, telling someone that she had been told she had to go through an adoption agency. She seemed to be in her mid to late teens and, from what I could see behind a winter coat, in the early stages of pregnancy. Her tone made it clear that she was not happy with this requirement. She seemed to me to be a likely candidate for Safe Havening but not at all likely to kill her child. Her attitude seemed to be that the entire matter was an inconvenience. Who knows, perhaps I'll read about her child being saved in 6 or 7 months. J. . > I understand the argument, Rupa. If I had evidence that women who > kill or leave their children to die were thinking rationally, I might [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Who knows, perhaps I'll read about her child being saved in 6 or 7 > months. Thanks for a thoughtful response, J. It's always a pleasure discussing things with you - particularly when we don't agree. Agreed there's nothing rational about infanticide, and I don't buy the "saves even one" argument for the same reasons as you. If we were going by "saves even one" it would be difficult to justify war or automobiles. It's always a tradeoff. And, to be frank, the numbers here seem so small that I personally see this as very much of a tempest in a teacup. I understand that opponents are concerned that (a) SHs legitimize anonymity at a time when the adoption community is trying to move the other way and (b) by making it seem simple, it will attract pregnant girls who would otherwise have gone the normal route to relinquishing, or have kept their child, or have given it to the father or his family to raise. I submit that there's no empirical support for (b), any more than there is support for the proposition that prospective abandoners will use SH instead. Both are suppositions that are intuitively appealing. In addition, it isn't clear if the alternatives presented in (b) - except for normal relinquishment - would even be a good thing for the child. As for the legitimization of anonymity - I agree it's a concern. How much of one depends I think on your point of view. So the question then is whether SHs would work without anonymity. I rather suspect that promising 20 years of anonymity would be enough. Someone dealing with a "now" problem as in "the evidence is crying, what shall I do with it," is unlikely to worry too much about who knows in 20 years. Another via media is the one that BSH says is operating: Encourage but do not require names and histories. It might be the first time that the girl actually starts thinking of the baby as a person instead of a thing. Even if she doesn't give it then, perhaps she'll come back. As to the young woman you overheard - I hope she does use an agency. However tedious, boring, and uncool it is. And if she does SH, I hope she is one of those that leaves a name and a history. (Didn't anyone tell her about birthmother expenses and being courted by enthusiastic a-pars?) > . >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > here seem so small that I personally see this as very much of a > tempest in a teacup. SH proponents are now pushing the number at 800, which is not an insignificant number. There are also indications that a good number of these "saves" may actually be run-of-the-mill hospital abandonments that are folded in to cook the stats. If this were a tempest in a teapot NCFA wouldn't be pushing SH and proclaiming it the response to records access for adult adoptees. IMO, it goes beyond that, though. It is clearly an attempt to abrogate fathers rights and subvert ICWA. NCFA has attempted to dismantle ICWA for years and SH is a chip-away strategy. BTW, New Jersey's proposed semi-open records bill exempts SH adoptees from accessing information in their files. Safe Havens are clearly the sealed records of the 21st century and creating the US version of Angry X. Most states don't track SH or even newborn abandonment, and those that do track do a poor job of it . California is the only state that even makes an attempt to seriously document SH, but it's not that great The LA County ICAN report is the best we have, and it's extremely interesting and says a lot more than SH proponents want to admit. Particularly interesting are the number of SH-protected parents who can't afford to keep their kid, appear to be illegals afraid to seek help for fear of INS or whatever it's called now, and people who are simply ignorant of real child welfare practice and assistance that's available to them. One woman, who actually retrieved her kid, was in the military and thought that she couldn't remain in service with a baby. The number of narratives published in newspapers of mothers, and sometimes fathers, weeping as they turnover their kid to SH is really disturbing. We also have reports of pregnant women using SH as a threat against the fathers who oppose their adoption plans. If you interfere with my plans I'll SH it. The numbers, as you know, are problematical. It took me 2 1/2 years to get the SH "report" out of Ohio and then it only arrived through the intervention of a state rep. It in no way was the "report" the state claimed in it's press release. It was nothing but a chart with numbers for each county. At the time I requested the "report" I asked for several other things, including the methodology of the survey and received nothing. It appears that whatever a county bureaucrat declares a SH is one. From further research I've determined that some of the reported SH were indeed hospital abandonment's by identified not-so-desperate mothers. These laws were never intended to justify boarder baby abandonment, and I think the sponsor of the Ohio bill would be horrified to think that it is. It's ironic that at the same time states developed PR campaigns to decrease hospital abandonments, they also developed campaigns to increase them through SH. I'll also add that here in Ohio the juv. court adjudicates whether a case is a SH, not social services or the police. Since everything is so secret I can't find out if the numbers Ohio distributes are adjudicated SH or not. Juv. Court proceedings are sealed and a docket number isn't even available to the public, so it's impossible to learn anything. > I understand that opponents are concerned that (a) SHs legitimize > anonymity at a time when the adoption community is trying to move the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > except for normal relinquishment - would even be a good thing for the > child. Oh I think there is. I have literally thousands of newspaper articles and studies which indicate this is exactly what's going on. I'm working slowly on a book about the politics of SH. And remember that Bill proffered that SH was for those who found traditional best practice too difficult. > As for the legitimization of anonymity - I agree it's a concern. How > much of one depends I think on your point of view. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what shall I do with it," is unlikely to worry too much about who > knows in 20 years. But that's now what we have with adoption records--even in open states. Besides we have the experience and igt's 10s of thousands of Xs to see what will happen. > Another via media is the one that BSH says is operating: Encourage but > do not require names and histories. It might be the first time that > the girl actually starts thinking of the baby as a person instead of a > thing. Even if she doesn't give it then, perhaps she'll come back. I think most of them already think of the baby as a person. It's the pushers who don't. Each baby that's SH'd is a strike against open records. > As to the young woman you overheard - I hope she does use an agency. > However tedious, boring, and uncool it is. And if she does SH, I hope > she is one of those that leaves a name and a history. (Didn't anyone > tell her about birthmother expenses and being courted by enthusiastic > a-pars?) Another onerous US practice. Marley On Feb 22, 9:28 pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > SH proponents are now pushing the number at 800, which is not an > insignificant number. There are also indications that a good number of > these "saves" may actually be run-of-the-mill hospital abandonments that > are folded in to cook the stats. So if a good number of these saves are just boarder babies in hospitals, then the number is a lot lower than 800. And that's 800 over how many years? If it's not a tempest in a teacup, it might be a tempest in a mixing bowl. If this were a tempest in a teapot NCFA > wouldn't be pushing SH and proclaiming it the response to records access for > adult adoptees. That sounds like NCFA subverting the thing for their own agenda. IMO, it goes beyond that, though. It is clearly an attempt > to abrogate fathers rights and subvert ICWA. NCFA has attempted to > dismantle ICWA for years and SH is a chip-away strategy. What's ICWA? >BTW, New Jersey's > proposed semi-open records bill exempts SH adoptees from accessing > information in their files. If the files exist, other bills can be entered. > Most states don't track SH or even newborn abandonment, and those that do > track do a poor job of it . California is the only state that even makes an > attempt to seriously document SH, but it's not that great That's something it would make a lot of sense to lobby for - better, more detailed record-keeping. > Particularly interesting are the > number of SH-protected parents who can't afford to keep their kid, appear > to be illegals afraid to seek help for fear of INS or whatever it's called > now, As they should be. Apparently there have been raids and people getting rounded up. > One woman, who actually retrieved her > kid, was in the military and thought that she couldn't remain in service > with a baby. So why didn't she do a regular relinquishment? Was she about to be deployed to Iraq or something? >The number of narratives published in newspapers of mothers, > and sometimes fathers, weeping as they turnover their kid to SH is really > disturbing. It is sad. But why are these people not using the regular reliquishment channels? Why does that seem so unattractive? It seems only the other day we were debating the problem of relinquishment being made so attractive that the mother would not be able to resist it even if she changed her mind. Now we have SHs, which are the quintessential No Pressure mechanism. So why don't people want to just call an agency that will treat them so well? >We also have reports of pregnant women using SH as a threat > against the fathers who oppose their adoption plans. If you interfere with > my plans I'll SH it. I agree this is a risk. >These laws > were never intended to justify boarder baby abandonment, and I think the > sponsor of the Ohio bill would be horrified to think that it is. Actually, I don't see the problem. If a baby is abandoned in hospital, the mother received medical care, presumably the kid did too; it's a lot safer than a MacDonald's parking lot, and there are records. So all you need is a revocation period and if the parent does not claim the baby within that time, it goes into foster care and then into an adoptive home. It's not precisely a SH, but it does the job. >It's > ironic that at the same time states developed PR campaigns to decrease > hospital abandonments, they also developed campaigns to increase them > through SH. So what do these PR campaigns sound like ? Don't forget to take your baby home with you? Pack your clothes, your toothbrush and - wait, you forgot your baby? There are lots of places to offload your kid, our hospital is not one of them? It costs us $500 per day to babysit your kid. A trashcan is cheaper? > I'll also add that here in Ohio the juv. court adjudicates whether a case is > a SH, not social services or the police. Since everything is so secret I > can't find out if the numbers Ohio distributes are adjudicated SH or not. > Juv. Court proceedings are sealed and a docket number isn't even available > to the public, so it's impossible to learn anything. That's frustrating. It's resulting in a situation where everyone is defining the situation according to their beliefs, with no hard data anywhere. > And remember that Bill proffered that > SH was for those who found traditional best practice too difficult. Sure. But he wasn't abandoning a child. He was speaking as we all are: on the basis of what we intuitively think is true, not on the basis of any data. > But that's now what we have with adoption records--even in open states. > Besides we have the experience and igt's 10s of thousands of Xs to see what > will happen. What I was proposing is that we promise 20 years of secrecy and nothing beyond that. > I think most of them already think of the baby as a person. If they did, why wouldn't they want to go through normal channels and have a say in who raises the kid? Or even look for an open adoption? Unless they believe - as some b-moms did - that other people are better qualified to make that decision. > On Feb 22, 9:28 pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > over how many years? If it's not a tempest in a teacup, it might be a > tempest in a mixing bowl. But we don't know and there's no way to find out. It's all a secret so one can only offer conjecture. There is absolutely NO way to get any information out of the states and no accountability. Iowa won't even say what citis baybees ae left in to "protect privacy." > If this were a tempest in a teapot NCFA >> wouldn't be pushing SH and proclaiming it the response to records access >> for >> adult adoptees. > > That sounds like NCFA subverting the thing for their own agenda. NCFA started it. Or rather Bill did, though there's some contemporary percursoratory ideas on it. Donna DeSoto in San Antonio for instance. The do-gooders took it on. I've got the history of the whole thing which will be in my book. > IMO, it goes beyond that, though. It is clearly an attempt >> to abrogate fathers rights and subvert ICWA. NCFA has attempted to >> dismantle ICWA for years and SH is a chip-away strategy. > > What's ICWA? The Federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the bane of NCFA's existance. >>BTW, New Jersey's >> proposed semi-open records bill exempts SH adoptees from accessing >> information in their files. > > If the files exist, other bills can be entered. Don't count on it. It's taken NJ 'activists" 27 years to get a semi-open recors bill thorugh that sells adoptees down the river. >> Most states don't track SH or even newborn abandonment, and those that do >> track do a poor job of it . California is the only state that even makes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's something it would make a lot of sense to lobby for - better, > more detailed record-keeping. Exactly. But no matter what happens we loose. If we learn it's a failure, they want to throw money at it. If they act like it's a win, they push it more. >> Particularly interesting are the >> number of SH-protected parents who can't afford to keep their kid, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So why didn't she do a regular relinquishment? Was she about to be > deployed to Iraq or something? Apparently the average person knows jack about adoption. A Quad A lawyer in one state who handles SH placements says that most of the parents are totally ignorant of adoption procedures and think that SH is the way it's done. Since most states prohibit actually discussing the matter with "desperate moms" there's no to explain it. And firefighters are hardly adoption counselors. Not to mention "any responsible adult." >>The number of narratives published in newspapers of mothers, >> and sometimes fathers, weeping as they turnover their kid to SH is really [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > quintessential No Pressure mechanism. So why don't people want to just > call an agency that will treat them so well? Because the pimps are playing on the ignorance of the populations that's are using it. illegal's, the ignorant, people who don't speak English., That's a lot of them. The propaganda says, this is the way you do it, and you do it. There's another population who are out to screw over dad. There are kids who are scared to tell their parents If they tell the parents after the fact, the parents go nuts and try to get the kid back. According to news reports the first SH in IL came from a woman already in an open adoption plan who decided she didn't like the parents she'd picked out and SH was "easier." I don't know if that's true, but that's what the report said. Bill always said that SH was for those who found regular adoption too difficult. It can hardly get any easier except with SH. >>We also have reports of pregnant women using SH as a threat >> against the fathers who oppose their adoption plans. If you interfere [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the baby within that time, it goes into foster care and then into an > adoptive home. It's not precisely a SH, but it does the job. I agree. SH is not needed. A hospital abandonment is NOT anonymous generally. Hospital abandonment's happen by the thousands and nobody is ever prosecuted--though they may be chased down by the state for child support. That's the worse that happens. SH is anon. And states and the feds have gone out of their way to discourage hospital abandonments. One hospital nearly went bankrupt with boarder baby care. >>It's >> ironic that at the same time states developed PR campaigns to decrease >> hospital abandonments, they also developed campaigns to increase them >> through SH. > > So what do these PR campaigns sound like ? You mean SH? > Don't forget to take your baby home with you? > Pack your clothes, your toothbrush and - wait, you forgot your baby? > There are lots of places to offload your kid, our hospital is not one > of them? > It costs us $500 per day to babysit your kid. A trashcan is cheaper? Or boarder babies? I've not seen any boarder baby campaigns but I know they're out there since news reports always mention them and hospitals are very pleased with the results to hear the hospitals talk. There may be some stuff on abandoned baby center at Berkeley page. >> I'll also add that here in Ohio the juv. court adjudicates whether a case >> is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > defining the situation according to their beliefs, with no hard data > anywhere. Right. >> And remember that Bill proffered that >> SH was for those who found traditional best practice too difficult. > > Sure. But he wasn't abandoning a child. He was speaking as we all are: > on the basis of what we intuitively think is true, not on the basis of > any data. Bill wasn't fond of data or facts unless it suited him. Just read FB 3. >> But that's now what we have with adoption records--even in open states. >> Besides we have the experience and igt's 10s of thousands of Xs to see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What I was proposing is that we promise 20 years of secrecy and > nothing beyond that. That's what have now in open records states and in some semi-open records states. >> I think most of them already think of the baby as a person. > > If they did, why wouldn't they want to go through normal channels and > have a say in who raises the kid? Or even look for an open adoption? > Unless they believe - as some b-moms did - that other people are > better qualified to make that decision. Because they don't know any better. Rupa, you've got this stuff being taught in schools in Cal. and Ill. How to abandon your baby. It's mandated by law. Would you care to see the curriculum? I can give you the links. Marley On Feb 24, 12:27 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > But we don't know and there's no way to find out. It's all a secret so one > can only offer conjecture. There is absolutely NO way to get any > information out of the states and no accountability. Iowa won't even say > what citis baybees ae left in to "protect privacy." Okay, I'm with you on the need for data. I don't think it's reasonable for states not to collect data on this. And publish it. I'd consider it normal demographic information. > The Federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the bane of NCFA's existance. Which applies *only* to children of native American heritage? A tempest, if not in a tea-cup or mixing bowl, perhaps in a bathtub. > >>BTW, New Jersey's > >> proposed semi-open records bill exempts SH adoptees from accessing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Don't count on it. It's taken NJ 'activists" 27 years to get a semi-open > recors bill thorugh that sells adoptees down the river. I agree, it can be difficult to carry people along on some things. There's a similar situation in India where the iniquitous adoption laws have needed change for 50 years and people don't care enough to do it. > Exactly. But no matter what happens we loose. If we learn it's a failure, > they want to throw money at it. If they act like it's a win, they push it > more. Well, that's the US for you. It's based on an adversarial system. Everything from dog parks (fervent supporters, equally fervent opponents, no hard data) to voting methods (advocates for change, opponents of change, no hard data) to SHs go the same way. You have to win by carrying the argument and getting the support. Which means, of course, that once one fervent group enters the arena, the opposing group has got to be as fervent. The middle ground - where I prefer to be - is rather barren. > Apparently the average person knows jack about adoption. A Quad A lawyer in > one state who handles SH placements says that most of the parents are > totally ignorant of adoption procedures and think that SH is the way it's > done. Since most states prohibit actually discussing the matter with > "desperate moms" there's no to explain it. And firefighters are hardly > adoption counselors. Not to mention "any responsible adult." So - you need an outreach campaign explaining adoption. I imagine that a lot of people are still working with the mindset of 50 years ago, where there were fewer good homes than babies. > Because the pimps are playing on the ignorance of the populations that's are > using it. illegal's, the ignorant, people who don't speak English., > That's a lot of them. The propaganda says, this is the way you do it, and > you do it. So where are the pimps for the adoption agencies that can make money off of these deals? Or for the lawyers who offer to get babies for their clients? Surely the SH pimps have a smaller dog in the fight than these guys? You can counter propaganda with counter-propaganda. Have agencies make presentations in High Schools. There's another population who are out to screw over dad. > There are kids who are scared to tell their parents If they tell the > parents after the fact, the parents go nuts and try to get the kid back. And the question is, should they have the right? There may be reasons the mom and dad doin't want their families to have their baby. > According to news reports the first SH in IL came from a woman already in > an open adoption plan who decided she didn't like the parents she'd picked > out and SH was "easier." I don't know if that's true, but that's what the > report said. Bill always said that SH was for those who found regular > adoption too difficult. That's a bit of a tautology, isn't it? If they didn't find it too difficult, they would have used it. > I agree. SH is not needed. A hospital abandonment is NOT anonymous > generally. Hospital abandonment's happen by the thousands and nobody is > ever prosecuted--though they may be chased down by the state for child > support. That's the worse that happens. Oh, joy. Just what the young folks want. Here's a bill for you with more zeroes than you've ever seen in your whole entire life. As for the hospital that nearly went bankrupt - it was obviously doing something wrong. It allowed the state to shift costs onto it. If the kids were healthy, they should have gone to foster homes. > I've not seen any boarder baby campaigns but I know > they're out there since news reports always mention them and hospitals are > very pleased with the results to hear the hospitals talk. >From what you describe, it's probably along the lines of We Will Catch You and You Will Pay! You could owe us thousands of dollars! We got that kid out of you, now you get it out of here! Seems to me that the simple way to deal with boarder babies is to set a deadline, and then hand the kid over to CPS. > On Feb 24, 12:27 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for states not to collect data on this. > And publish it. I'd consider it normal demographic information. So do most people. The official IL report is nothing but regurgitation of the law with stats tacked on. The Cal report has a list of questions written right in the law that must be answered. I'd like to see more, but it's a good start. BTW, CA didn't issue their mandated reports until squeezed to do it by open records activists out there. The ICan report from LA County is the best and goes way beyond what the state requires. >> The Federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the bane of NCFA's existance. > > Which applies *only* to children of native American heritage? > > A tempest, if not in a tea-cup or mixing bowl, perhaps in a bathtub. It's a huge issue with Indians. NCFA has been trying to get it gutted for years. There's an interesting history to this, including the Bill Pierce-John McCain War. >> >>BTW, New Jersey's >> >> proposed semi-open records bill exempts SH adoptees from accessing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > laws have needed change for 50 years and people don't care enough to > do it. That's the problem with democracy. >>> Exactly. But no matter what happens we loose. If we learn it's a >>> failure, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the opposing group has got to be as fervent. The middle ground - where > I prefer to be - is rather barren. In this case it means literally bursting into tears at hearings and passing around pictures of dead babies--and in some cases, McCarthyite smears of opponents. And, of course, politicians who'd rather hold their nose and vote for something they know is reprehensible, than fear of offending their electors. >> Apparently the average person knows jack about adoption. A Quad A lawyer >> in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a lot of people are still working with the mindset of 50 years ago, > where there were fewer good homes than babies. Not much has changed It's still about transfer of goods. The mechanism is just "nicer." >> Because the pimps are playing on the ignorance of the populations that's >> are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their clients? Surely the SH pimps have a smaller dog in the fight > than these guys? A lot of adoption agencies hate SH and have openly opposed. They certainly did in Ohio It's bad for business. In a lot of states, SH adoptions are public adoptions. FL send them off to agencies. > You can counter propaganda with counter-propaganda. Have agencies make > presentations in High Schools. Thats not my job. Let agencies do it. Of course, they won't unless somebody foots the bill for their presentations--mills like Bethany aside In CA and IL SH education happens in the schools. As far as I know "adoption education" isn't mandated as if SH education. > There's another population who are out to screw over dad. >> There are kids who are scared to tell their parents If they tell the >> parents after the fact, the parents go nuts and try to get the kid back. > > And the question is, should they have the right? There may be reasons > the mom and dad doin't want their families to have their baby. Like mom and dad will know they had sex. >> According to news reports the first SH in IL came from a woman already >> in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's a bit of a tautology, isn't it? If they didn't find it too > difficult, they would have used it. It's Bill talking. It's really really really to surrender kid. >> I agree. SH is not needed. A hospital abandonment is NOT anonymous >> generally. Hospital abandonment's happen by the thousands and nobody is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, joy. Just what the young folks want. Here's a bill for you with > more zeroes than you've ever seen in your whole entire life. If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. > As for the hospital that nearly went bankrupt - it was obviously doing > something wrong. It allowed the state to shift costs onto it. If the > kids were healthy, they should have gone to foster homes. Let me find the article on it. I'm thinking it was at Rutgers, but I'm not sure. They had f I remember, an entire abandoned babies ward. >> I've not seen any boarder baby campaigns but I know >> they're out there since news reports always mention them and hospitals [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Seems to me that the simple way to deal with boarder babies is to set > a deadline, and then hand the kid over to CPS. I think that happens. Marley On Feb 27, 4:27 pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > So - you need an outreach campaign explaining adoption. I imagine that > > a lot of people are still working with the mindset of 50 years ago, > > where there were fewer good homes than babies. > > Not much has changed It's still about transfer of goods. The mechanism is > just "nicer." Transfer of goods? It's a transfer of a massive financial responsibility. That's why the state prefers adoption. The adoptive parents take over the costs of rearing the kid. > >> I agree. SH is not needed. A hospital abandonment is NOT anonymous > >> generally. Hospital abandonment's happen by the thousands and nobody is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. So that's another argument for SH: No pill? no shame no blame no bill. > > Anonymity is the heart of the dispute over Safe Haven laws. Why is > > anonymity required for a successful Safe Haven program? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I would guess that someone who is SHing rather than going through the > normal channels is operating out of fear. And we all know how sound decisions made out of fear are. Kathy 1 **Snipped** > By the way, there's no "Baby Girl Dumped" or "Baby Beacon Hill." The > last baby we named Baby IRIS, for Infant Relinquished In Safety. YOU named Baby Iris?? Why the hell are YOU involved in the naming of these infants?? -- KL (Just wondering) > YOU named Baby Iris?? Why the hell are YOU involved in the naming of > these infants?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > KL > (Just wondering) It's simple, the name is much nicer the Jane Doe. Everyone involved agreed it was a much more fitting name for this beautiful little girl! Ms www.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com > YOU named Baby Iris?? Why the hell are YOU involved in the naming of > these infants?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > KL > (Just wondering) It's simple, the name is much nicer the Jane Doe. Everyone involved agreed it was a much more fitting name for this beautiful little girl! Ms www.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com But what RIGHT to you have? Where do you personally fit in the scheme of things? IS BSHNE a shadow state dept. of social services? Iris is a perfectly fine name. Iris Carrington was a fine villainous.. But being named as an acronym.? Boy, that's weird. Wasn't it in Maryland where an abandoned baby was named Dora because she was found at a door? And in Nevada there's been babies named after the casinos they were left in. Marley Signaturehttp://bastardette.blogspot.com > But being named as an acronym.? Boy, that's weird. I think it's just plain rude. > > YOU named Baby Iris?? Why the hell are YOU involved in the naming of > > these infants?? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > was found at a door? And in Nevada there's been babies named after the > casinos they were left in. But surely these were just "working titles" so to speak - like Jane Doe. I'm not even going to mention the working titles our kids had until we got around to naming them. They're on internet these days! Why is this such a big deal? Baby Iris Doe has probably already been renamed something innocuous like Emily. >> > YOU named Baby Iris?? Why the hell are YOU involved in the naming of >> > these infants?? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Why is this such a big deal? Baby Iris Doe has probably already been > renamed something innocuous like Emily. It's a big deal because dilettante outsiders are subverting the child welfare system for their own self-aggrandizement. There are plenty of child welfare and adoption placement people in Mass who have stories to tell about this. I've got no problem with Iris myself. Marley > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > welfare and adoption placement people in Mass who have stories to tell about > this. I've got no problem with Iris myself. America runs on dilettante outsiders. They lobby. They get the word out. They vote. They raise funds. They are the thousand points of light. You're one of them. On Feb 20, 9:53�pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - LOL. I bet you enjoy pinning butterflies to specimen boards. ;-} J. > On Feb 20, 9:53?pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > > You're one of them. > LOL. I bet you enjoy pinning butterflies to specimen boards. ;-} > > J.- I guess I should apologize. I wasn't trying to be nasty. I just can't resist an argument.... I'm an admirer of people who actually get out there and do things they believe in. And I truly think America runs on this. I've never seen such an activist culture anywhere else. On Feb 21, 10:57 am, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> wrote: > > On Feb 20, 9:53?pm, "rkb...@pacific.net.sg" <rkb...@pacific.net.sg> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don't think there's any reason for an apology, Rupa, and I'm sure Marley would let you know if she thought there was. You were dead on, from where I sit. J. Againk, who gave you the authority to do so? Marley > YOU named Baby Iris?? Why the hell are YOU involved in the naming of > these infants?? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > KL > (Just wondering) It's simple, the name is much nicer the Jane Doe. Everyone involved agreed it was a much more fitting name for this beautiful little girl! Ms www.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com Face it, the Morrisey's will never answer a question put forth unless they can spin the answer. Since they can't do that with this, we will never see an answer! KL > Againk, who gave you the authority to do so? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ms > www.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com Gee, I must have hit a nerve. I was simply asking questions that not only I have, but have been asked of me by "ordinary people," social workers and lawyers. These questions and more have to be addressed at some point. Since you know so much about SH, I thought you'd have the answers. If you think SH won't be challenged successfully by somebody with standing, then continue to doubt on. IMO, a successful challenge will come from the "other parent" or perhaps an ICWA litigant, but you never know. It might be a nice project for a public law firm. I haven't met a laywer yet who didn't think that SH is unconstitutional and if challenged will fall. Marley >> A new Bastardette has arrived: >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Proud to be the "socialist jackboots" from MA > www.babysafehavennewengland.com >I haven't met a laywer yet who didn't > think that SH is unconstitutional and if challenged will fall. > > Marley I guess you haven't met Representative Barry Finegold, Esq. And let's not forget a majority of the Massachusetts Legislature who are also lawyers. Finegold lead spossored the MA Baby Safe Haven bill, and of course the Legislature passed the bill. I think you did meet Karen Spilka, Esq., the Senate sponsor of the new Baby Safe Haven bill. By the way she's also been a social worker, for teens in crisis. If it's so unconstitional then why hasn't there been a single law repealed, or even questioned by a single State Supreme Court judge? You've got 47 states to choose from. Guess they're looking at the record of failure in Massachusetts prior to passage of our now very successful Baby Safe Haven law. You're the only one demanding to go back to that record of 6 of 13 babies dead, and as you say 3/4 of heritages and medical records stripped. Ms www.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com > >?I haven't met a laywer yet who didn't > > think that SH is unconstitutional and if challenged will fall. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > heritages and medical records stripped. > Mswww.BabySafeHavenNewEngland.com Finegold is a real estate attorney. Spilka practices in labor and employment. Each far from my idea of a Constitutional scholar. I was a social worker for teens in crisis - that doesn't make me a Constitutional scholar either! How, btw, are you measuring the success of this misguided piece of legislation? Are there no longer children being abandoned in garbage containers, etc. in Massachusetts? Answer honestly....because there certainly are. 3 well documented cases in the past 6 months (compare and contrast to only 13 cases in total from 2000 through 2004). In fact, the rate of abandonment not through a safe haven location hasn't really changed since the passage of your law. There were annually a couple such tragedies and, surprisingly, there are still - despite media attention and promotion of safe havens. I would argue, strenuously, that your laws actually promote abandonment as an option and have the unintended consequence of increasing these incidences. So the law cannot reliably demonstrate that it contributes to saving any lives and yet, it grossly impacts the publics understanding of the value of identity to the individual and particularly, to the adoptee. Not really my idea of in the public interest either. >> >?I haven't met a laywer yet who didn't >> > think that SH is unconstitutional and if challenged will fall. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > a social worker for teens in crisis - that doesn't make me a > Constitutional scholar either! Thanks. I intended to address this myself, but hadn't had the time to look up the background of Finegold and Spilka. I would add that Spilka has shown her contempt for adoptees and the adoption process in the state's open records debacle. And she treated Lee Allen pretty bad, too. Apparently, she's an equal opportunity hater. I also have problems equating laweyering with legislation. The top priority of a lawyer who sits in the legislature is being re-elected. Generally he or she does not make waves nor engage in controversial legislation unless they're on what the perceive as the winning or popular side. The also have axes to grind and sought election to push through their narrow agenda, banning abortion for instance. They are definitely not known for sound legal thinking. In 2002 I had the pleasure of sitting in a hearing of the California legislature where a committee member proclaimed that it's not the legislature's business to know if a law it passes is actually legal. That's the court's job. Am I imagining things or does that give legislators, their contributors, and lobbyists license to pass anything they please and stick it to the public to file an action against it? I'm old enough to remember when legislators at least pretended to think about the legalities of their actions. I think you'd be hard-put to find ethical adoption lawyers who support SH. I had dinner with a founding member of Quad A who actively lobbied against SH.. This person has handled some SH placements since then and has rung some chimes very loudly and passed along some good dirt to me about what's really going on. Several adoption lawyers here in Ohio have been very vocal about the unconstitutionality of the law, which they want to see overturned. And as I told the Morriseys, they had have a cow if they'd attended the Wells Lecture at the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy last week on the subject of "No Parent Left Behind: Fathers' Rights in Adoption." The first presentation was "Safe Haven Laws: Where are the Daddies?" and featured Prof. Jeffrey Parness, from the U. of Northern Illinois School of Law. His specialization is civil procedure, maternity and paternity laws, the legal status of the unborn and judicial rulemaking. He's a prolific scholar with dozens of law review articles. One of his latest is "Deserting Mothers, Abandoned Babies, Lost Fathers: Dangers in Safe Havens," 24 Quinnipiac LR, 335 (2005). He is 100% opposed to SH. Later that morning, Laura Oren, Law Foundation Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Children, Law & Policy, U. of Houston School of Law called SH unconstitutional. Attorney Jeffrey Leving, the author of "Fathers' Rights" and a very outspoken and opposed to SH was scheduled to speak, too, but was snowed in. Of course, one can always claim that NCLAP is "anti-adoption" since that's always the cry when somebody demands ethical practices. I'll also point out Carol Sanger's "culture of life" Columbia LR article, which I know the Ms didn't like, since they said so here. Parness doesn't agree with Sanger in some substantial ways, but they both oppose SH. While I agree with much of Sanger's article, and I also agree with Parness that SH is about "the culture of motherhood." I think we can talk about the agendas of both. Note that neither Parness nor Sanger are politicians vying for a seat at the statehouse. They are well-established, prominent professors and legal scholars. There is also work in other areas such as health policy which soundly whup SH. > How, btw, are you measuring the success of this misguided piece of > legislation? Are there no longer children being abandoned in garbage [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > value of identity to the individual and particularly, to the > adoptee. Not really my idea of in the public interest either. But was it ever promoted as public interest? it's always about maintaining the status quo. Marley On Feb 23, 3:53 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > So the law cannot reliably demonstrate that it contributes to saving > any lives and yet, it grossly impacts the publics understanding of the > value of identity to the individual and particularly, to the > adoptee. Not really my idea of in the public interest either. But was it ever promoted as public interest? it's always about maintaining the status quo. Marley I was thinking in conjunction with the legal litmus test for the closed records system - that without a ruling of unConstitutionality, the Courts could rely on the limp rationale that the closed system status quo addresses an important and compelling need of the State and is thus perfectly legal, notwithstanding the injury to and deprivation of basic rights of the individual. If seems easy enough to apply the same antiquated reasoning to SH. Safe Haven proponents have had among their number many well meaning people who, without thinking about or fully appreciating the consequences for the broader segment of society, believe that Safe Haven is purely about saving lives. It has always been tug at your heartstrings legislation about which I think the man on the street believes there is only "up side" - the status quoers have been only too delighted to let the do-gooder's passion be the face of this issue. Pretty face...it's a slam dunk from there. So yeah, I think it has always been promoted as being in the public interest - but hey, who ever suggested there was truth in advertising? > On Feb 23, 3:53 am, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of basic rights of the individual. If seems easy enough to apply the > same antiquated reasoning to SH. I don't know, if the state today can legitimately use a state interest rationale for keeping records sealed from the person to which they pertain. It will try, of course, but I don't now how much longer they can hold out. Sundsquist was clear that birth is a public and private matter and that parents do not have a right to anonymity from their offspring. This, of course, holds for the district only, but can be used elsewhere in reference. The secret keepers are scraping the bottom at this point. Have you read the NJ Bar's opposition to that state's semi-open records bill? It's quite amazing. Someone sent me a copy of the Bar's letter. I've been unable to find it online, but I'm still looking. The Bar lists among other arguments that records access conflicts with the state's SH law and may force women to SH rather than use legitimate means to surrender. This despite the fact that the bill exempts SH adoptees from receiving information. BTW, I have no recollection of the NJ Bar opposing the SH bill way back when. Although we're discussing SH, I really have to throw in this kicker. Apparently records access is now a racial issue affecting black single moms. Here is the NJ Bar's most amazing statement--which makes no sense to me. Then I'm not a lawyer. While BN opposes this bill, I can guarantee you it's not on some weird grounds like this. BIRTH MOTHERS MUCH MORE THAN BIRTH FATHERS, AND PARTICULARLY AFRICAN-AMERICAN SINGLE MOTHERS "Often a woman who places her baby for adoption does so because she is single and the biological father is out of the picture. The father may have broken off the relationship after learning about the pregnancy, if there was ever a relationship to start with. She may not know the father. She may have even been raped. Children born under these circumstances often have birth certificates that do not reveal a father's name. This bill will further the disparity between how men and women address the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy. "According to recent U.S. Census Bureau reports, single parents accounted for 65% of all African American family groups with children, compared with 35% for among Hispanics and 25% among whites. While the percentage of African-American single parent families is attributable to complex social reasons, this legislation could disproportionately impact single black mothers to their detriment." What in the world does this mean. Can somebody translate it? Safe Haven proponents have had among > their number many well meaning people who, without thinking about or > fully appreciating the consequences for the broader segment of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So yeah, I think it has always been promoted as being in the public > interest - but hey, who ever suggested there was truth in advertising? I believe that the majority of SH proponents are well-intentioned and good hearted. I've met them. Without knowing it, or at last acknowledging it, they've done the dirty work for the status quoers who sit back and watch the fun. Very few people are familiar how SH started, and why it started. BTW, if you're in the Boston area (you seen to know a lot about Mass) I'm presenting at the AAC March 7. Marley On Feb 23, 1:04�pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Although we're discussing SH, I really have to throw in this kicker. > Apparently records access is now a racial issue affecting black single moms. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What in the world does this mean. Can somebody translate it? It's a very sloppy play of the race card. They seem to be saying that because a higher percentage of black families are single parent than are Hispanic or white families, black families may be more affected by releasing orginal birth records. It's bad logic, at best. A higher percentage of single-parent families does not mean that blacks are over-represented among either birth parents whose identities might be disclosed or adoptees who might have access to their OBCs. The fact is that a child in a single parent, non-adoptive family already has access to his or he birth certificate, regardless of who it does or doesn't identify. J. On Feb 23, 1:04?pm, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Although we're discussing SH, I really have to throw in this kicker. > Apparently records access is now a racial issue affecting black single [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > What in the world does this mean. Can somebody translate it? It's a very sloppy play of the race card. They seem to be saying that because a higher percentage of black families are single parent than are Hispanic or white families, black families may be more affected by releasing orginal birth records. Thanks, Jim. This slop read racist to me, though I doubt it's intended as such. It's what one can expect from privileged blowhards. There's no context or relevance to records access. It's just some meandering statement about nothing.. Isn't it our friends in low places who are always complaining that not enough black babies are available for adoption? Those pesky black parents keep their kids or the extended family does. FB3 goes on and on about how bad kinship placement is. BTW, during the Alabama open records campaign black leggies couldn't get interested in the issue, saying that adoption is a white folks problem. It's bad logic, at best. A higher percentage of single-parent families does not mean that blacks are over-represented among either birth parents whose identities might be disclosed or adoptees who might have access to their OBCs. The fact is that a child in a single parent, non-adoptive family already has access to his or he birth certificate, regardless of who it does or doesn't identify. J. Right. Although we oppose the NJ bill, it's always a wonder to read the crap that spews from the people and institutions who generate large incomes from the misery of others. At least the "privacy rights" of the dead argument has disappeared--at least for now. And people wonder why I disparage liberals. "Conservatives" are already in the sinkhole so there's often no reasons to point out their stupidity. Marley |
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
|
©2010 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.