PDA

View Full Version : =?utf-8?B?TUEgLSDigJhCYWJ5IFNhZmUgSGF2ZW7igJkgdG8gZ28gaW 50byBlZmZlY3Qg?=


BabySafeHaven
10-22-2004, 06:11 AM
MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.webstertimes.net/101304baby.html
October 13, 2004
‘Baby Safe Haven’ to go into effect
BY GINGER COSTEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
WEBSTER — According to her high school principal and others who testified on
her behalf, she was viewed as a role model for other students and an
academically gifted student who excelled in whatever she did.
Fellow congregation members testified that she was very active in her church
and willing to help others whenever and wherever needed. Her mother spoke of
her as being a model child and a Girl Scout, achieving some of the highest
honors available. Her employer testified and considered her a hard-worker and
devoted to her job.
At her trial, Christina Fiske was described as a leader. This bright 21 year
old, however, is currently serving up to 10 years in prison for killing her
newborn baby.
How is this young North Carolina woman connected to Massachusetts?
Fiske is one of the more than 100 young mothers nationwide who, each year,
abandon their newborns in ditches, toilets, trashcans, rivers, and other
hazardous places. Almost half of these children do not survive.
On July 16, in Springfield, a newborn girl was found abandoned and critically
ill outside a Southampton fire station. The baby was suffering from hypothermia
and blood loss. “Angelique” was one of four babies abandoned in
Massachusetts in the past 18 months.
Massachusetts joined 46 other states on July 30 when an Act Relative to the
Safe Placement of Newborn Infants (G.L.c.119 section 39.5) was signed into law
by Lt. Governor Kerry Healey. The law takes effect on Oct. 28.
Known as the “Baby Safe Haven” law, the act imposes new requirements on
police and fire departments relative to abandoned babies. The law allows a
parent of a newborn infant seven days of age or less to voluntarily place an
infant with an appropriate person at a hospital, police department, or manned
fire station without it automatically being considered abuse or neglect.
Although the other laws across the country vary from 72 hours to 45 days for
the age of the infant, and from complete immunity to affirmative defense in
regards to prosecution, all 46 agree that the two initial points of contact are
a manned fire department or local emergency room.
Webster Fire Department personnel are not waiting until the end of the month to
take action.
“We began developing a policy and procedure process in September” said
Chief Doug Babcock.
Babcock said his department is completely trained and ready if something should
happen.
“Since everyone is already trained on the ABC’s (airway, breathing,
circulation) of CPR and first aid, we started there,” said Ann Peters,
medical training coordinator. “First we check the ABCs and if they’re
breathing well on their own, we move on to note the baby’s temperature, as a
baby can lose body heat rapidly,” she said.
Giving baby “Angelique” as an example, Peters explained the importance of
making sure that the umbilical cord is properly managed and the baby’s head
is covered.
“Angelique almost died from blood loss because her cord hadn’t been tied
off and her body temperature was 84 degrees, which is critical for a newborn
infant,” she said.
Peters is also looking to assemble “Baby Safe bundles” to help the
emergency personnel better respond to the parents and baby.
“I’m looking to make little bundles with a new blanket, newborn diapers and
pacifier, a small knitted cap for the baby’s head and a little age
appropriate toy,” said Peters.
Included with the kits Peters is also adding a simple one-page list of the five
questions needed hoping the parents will respond to the questions in writing.
These kits will be made available to the appropriate responders after they are
complete.
Since neither department has budgeted for this expense, donations of newborn
diapers and pacifiers, new baby blankets, small stocking knit caps and age
appropriate toys can be delivered to the fire or police departments on Thompson
Road.
Since only the police department building is currently staffed 24 hours a day,
signs are being posted at both fire stations notifying anyone needing
assistance after hours to call 911 or proceed to the police department
location.

Peggy Skowron, vice president of nursing at Harrington Memorial Hospital in
Southbridge, said the hospital is also completely ready should the need arise
to deal with an abandoned infant.
“We’ve been proactive with this and are working together with our
departments to make sure everyone knows about the law and what to do,” said
Skowron.
According to Skowron, the state Department of Social Services is responsible
for educating the public and making sure everyone is aware of the new law and
the necessary guidelines that should be followed.
When accepting the newborn from the parent, the act provides that the person at
the facility must make every effort to obtain the following information: name
of the newborn, name and address of the parent(s), birthplace and date, medical
history of both newborn and parents, whether the parents plan to return and
seek future custody, and any other important information.
“While it’s important that the parent provide information, the parent is
not required by the act to provide any information,” said Skowron.
Once a facility has accepted the newborn, it must immediately contact the DSS.
“It’s important for parents to know that placing the newborn does not in
itself automatically terminate parental rights however, for it’s presumed to
be an abandonment for the purposes of authorizing DSS to initiate a petition to
terminate parental rights,” said Babcock.
Babcock also said if physical abuse or neglect is suspected, they are mandated
to report the same to DSS.

Tm n Kat
10-22-2004, 08:26 PM
>Subject: MA - ‘Baby Safe Haven’ to go into effectFrom: babysafehaven@aol.com (BabySafeHaven)Date: 10/22/2004
How is this young North Carolina woman connected to Massachusetts?
Fiske is one of the more than 100 young mothers nationwide who, each year,abandon their newborns in ditches, toilets, trashcans, rivers, and otherhazardous places. Almost half of these children do not survive.

Did this academically gifted student who excelled in whatever she did actually
say that she would not have abandoned her newborn in a ditch, toilet, trashcan,
river, closet, or other hazardous place if there had been a safehaven that she
could drive, catch a bus, taxi, whatever and get to after she delivered? Why
does this 21 year old honor student need a law to tell her its legal to abandon
her baby somewhere perceived as safe instead of a garbage can? Why didn't she
just leave the baby somewhere where it would be found? The safehaven promoters
do not understand the mindset of these girls...but they will carry on,
continuing to distract from finding real solutions to helping them and saving
their babies because the perceived safehaven fix makes them feel better. These
girls don't need a last minute dump, they need a plan they can handle when the
panic sets in. Kathy J

Rupa Bose
10-24-2004, 02:34 PM
tmnkat@aol.com (Tm n Kat) wrote in message

These girls don't need a last minute dump, they need a plan they can handle when the panic sets in. Kathy J

But what, though?

It seems that most abandoning mothers are women or girls who had been
in denial about the pregnancy, and hadn't made a plan. This would mean
that the action required would necessarily be last minute, when they
could no longer deny that there was a pregnancy.

After all, a plan is not that difficult to make, except for the
difficulties inherent in the fact that there are usually no good
options for a unwanted pregnancy. A girl can relinquish her child, and
it can be taken into the care of someone else the day its born. The
problem is that the target group we speak of isn't going to make a
plan.

Rupa

Palms2pines
10-24-2004, 04:29 PM
> Theproblem is that the target group we speak of isn't going to make aplan.Rupa


I agree, Rupa. Even the use of a "safe haven" drop off facility would
necessitate some prior planning. I do not believe a female in denial and
pretense until the moment her water breaks is actually going to make efforts
to:

1. Find out the laws in her state regarding newborn abandonment.

2. Check the phone book or other resources that would list the "safe haven"
closest.

3. Work out the logistics of giving birth, continuing to conceal the child
while at the same time making transportation arrangements for herself and the
child to the nearest "safe haven". For God's sake, the very point of dangerous,
quick abandonment is to hide the truth and return to the ruse as quickly as
possible!

I do think some pregnant people who already have placement at birth in mind
will see "safe havens" as the 7/11's of adoption. Quick. No questions. You're
in. You're out. Bye-bye, baby. I think the biggest customers will be drug
addicted mothers who can avoid prosecution via anonymous drop-off that they
could not have avoided had they actually checked themselves into a hospital to
give birth.


P2P

sylak
10-24-2004, 05:08 PM
It seems I am not the only one somewhat troubled by this Safe Haven issue. I
want to believe that it will save young lives but the more I think about it
and the more I read the less I tend to believe that. A woman who has made
the decision to go to term has a lot of time to consider her options. I
agree with the idea that these woman who would knowingly "dump" thier
newborn to just be rid of him/her are not going to change because of the
Baby Safe Haven. Those women who have decided for whatever reason to
relinquish may go the Baby Safe Haven route rather than the paperwork laden
traditional adoption route. I hope I am wrong and that this law does save
some innocents. I guess I am just not convinced.

Raymond


"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20041024192931.22385.00001290@mb-m06.aol.com... Theproblem is that the target group we speak of isn't going to make aplan.Rupa I agree, Rupa. Even the use of a "safe haven" drop off facility would necessitate some prior planning. I do not believe a female in denial and pretense until the moment her water breaks is actually going to make efforts to: 1. Find out the laws in her state regarding newborn abandonment. 2. Check the phone book or other resources that would list the "safe haven" closest. 3. Work out the logistics of giving birth, continuing to conceal the child while at the same time making transportation arrangements for herself and the child to the nearest "safe haven". For God's sake, the very point of dangerous, quick abandonment is to hide the truth and return to the ruse as quickly as possible! I do think some pregnant people who already have placement at birth in mind will see "safe havens" as the 7/11's of adoption. Quick. No questions. You're in. You're out. Bye-bye, baby. I think the biggest customers will be drug addicted mothers who can avoid prosecution via anonymous drop-off that they could not have avoided had they actually checked themselves into a hospital to give birth. P2P

Rupa Bose
10-25-2004, 12:07 AM
palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote > I agree, Rupa. Even the use of a "safe haven" drop off facility would necessitate some prior planning. I do not believe a female in denial and pretense until the moment her water breaks is actually going to make efforts to: 1. Find out the laws in her state regarding newborn abandonment. 2. Check the phone book or other resources that would list the "safe haven" closest. 3. Work out the logistics of giving birth, continuing to conceal the child while at the same time making transportation arrangements for herself and the child to the nearest "safe haven". For God's sake, the very point of dangerous, quick abandonment is to hide the truth and return to the ruse as quickly as possible! I do think some pregnant people who already have placement at birth in mind will see "safe havens" as the 7/11's of adoption. Quick. No questions. You're in. You're out. Bye-bye, baby. I think the biggest customers will be drug addicted mothers who can avoid prosecution via anonymous drop-off that they could not have avoided had they actually checked themselves into a hospital to give birth.

You may well be right, and only time will tell. But your approach
seems to be very rational for an act that is in a sense driven more by
emotion than logic. I completely agree that the steps you describe
sound more like a plan than a desperate person would make.

Yet I can visualize a situation where a girl, having made no plan,
does contrive to conceal the birth. (If she doesn't, the issue does
not arise, because presumably the people assisting her can be more
rational about the whole thing.) Then she's left with an unaccounted
for baby.

My personal guess is that mothers who unsafely abandon don't really
recognize that what they have there is a baby, a person; they see
something their bodies have ejected, a problem. But if they actually
are aware enough to recognize that they have a baby on their hands, it
does seem to me possible that they would manage to get the baby to a
Safe Haven -- if it's easy enough. If all she needs to do is take the
baby somewhere easily accessible and hand it over. I can imagine that
anything more daunting than that -- for a woman in this mindset --
might result in her doing something, anything, to pretend that the
baby is not there.

I don't think the SHs will catch anything like all the abandoned
babies; but equally, I think it is plausible that they might catch
some.

Rupa

kat
10-25-2004, 04:52 AM
"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0410242307.12aba266@posting.google.c om... palms2pines@aol.comh8spam (Palms2pines) wrote > I agree, Rupa. Even the use of a "safe haven" drop off facility would necessitate some prior planning. I do not believe a female in denial and pretense until the moment her water breaks is actually going to make
efforts to: 1. Find out the laws in her state regarding newborn abandonment. 2. Check the phone book or other resources that would list the "safe
haven" closest. 3. Work out the logistics of giving birth, continuing to conceal the
child while at the same time making transportation arrangements for herself
and the child to the nearest "safe haven". For God's sake, the very point of
dangerous, quick abandonment is to hide the truth and return to the ruse as quickly
as possible! I do think some pregnant people who already have placement at birth in
mind will see "safe havens" as the 7/11's of adoption. Quick. No questions.
You're in. You're out. Bye-bye, baby. I think the biggest customers will be
drug addicted mothers who can avoid prosecution via anonymous drop-off that
they could not have avoided had they actually checked themselves into a
hospital to give birth. You may well be right, and only time will tell. But your approach seems to be very rational for an act that is in a sense driven more by emotion than logic. I completely agree that the steps you describe sound more like a plan than a desperate person would make. Yet I can visualize a situation where a girl, having made no plan, does contrive to conceal the birth. (If she doesn't, the issue does not arise, because presumably the people assisting her can be more rational about the whole thing.) Then she's left with an unaccounted for baby. My personal guess is that mothers who unsafely abandon don't really recognize that what they have there is a baby, a person; they see something their bodies have ejected, a problem. But if they actually are aware enough to recognize that they have a baby on their hands, it does seem to me possible that they would manage to get the baby to a Safe Haven -- if it's easy enough. If all she needs to do is take the baby somewhere easily accessible and hand it over. I can imagine that anything more daunting than that -- for a woman in this mindset -- might result in her doing something, anything, to pretend that the baby is not there. I don't think the SHs will catch anything like all the abandoned babies; but equally, I think it is plausible that they might catch some. Rupa

The more likely scenario is that SHs will encourage more and more young and
scared girls (who don't want to face their parents with the news) to forgo
prenatal care, give birth unattended (with all the dire consequences that
can entail) and then SH the infant rather than confront their parents who in
all likelyhood would aid them (after the inital shock).

Kathy

Rupa Bose
10-25-2004, 08:23 PM
"kat" <katlat24seeifthishelps@hotmail.com> wrote The more likely scenario is that SHs will encourage more and more young and scared girls (who don't want to face their parents with the news) to forgo prenatal care, give birth unattended (with all the dire consequences that can entail) and then SH the infant rather than confront their parents who in all likelyhood would aid them (after the inital shock). Kathy

I can't say if it's more likely; I think most girls, even if they
don't know *how* a person gets pregnant, still find the thought of
childbirth scary and wouldn't opt to do it alone.

However, it's certainly a plausible possibility, and one that can't be
ruled out as an unwanted consequence of publicising SHs. If the
publicity emphasizes that hospitals can also function as SHs, then
there's a fighting chance that the girl will be within reach of help.

And, ideally, there should be free and confidential prenatal clinics
to which a girl could go and feel safe in confiding. Doubt that bit
would be implemented, though, both for cost and ideological reasons.

Rupa

Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements