{Westford is one of the most serene suburban towns in MA, and home of Kimball's
Home Made Ice Cream stand. A Mass favorite, voted top in the state.}

MASSACHUSETTS
Couple lobbies board on safe baby bill
By RITA SAVARD
Lowell Sun Correspondent
WESTFORD — Although Jean and Michael Morrisey never even knew their
adopted daughter, Rebecca Mary, the newborn left an impression that they
will forever remember.
In November 2001, the infant was found dead in a Dorchester cemetery by
a group of children who attended the nearby elementary school. Police
said it was a clear case of abandonment.
“She was laying on top of a towel, behind a tree,” said Michael
Morrisey. “Because of the elements, no one could be certain if she had
been outside for two or three days.”
The medical examiner contacted Jean Morrisey, president of the American
chapter of the Bonnie Babies Foundation, for help with the burial
process. Bonnie Babies provides counseling to women and families in
dealing with infant deaths.
Because of state laws, the Morriseys had to adopt the baby in order to
bury her.
“It’s a responsibility that we were more than willing to take on,”
Michael said. “Lowering a baby into the ground is something you don’t
forget. That image is in our mind and it’s never going to change.”
Remembering how they met baby Rebecca Mary, who was named by the
Lexington couple, continues to propel their cause as leading advocates
of the Baby Safe Haven Law.
Massachusetts is one of five states remaining, including Nebraska,
Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont, without laws that allow parents to abandon
an infant in a safe environment, such as a hospital emergency room, fire
house or police station, and keep their anonymity without getting
arrested.
Michael Morrisey brought the issue before Westford selectmen last night,
hoping Westford will eventually join the growing list of cities and
towns across the state voting to support the law. Morrisey said that by
next year he’d like to have 200 communities involved to assure the
bill’s passage in the House.
Having heard the horrible stories of babies being left behind in
Dumpsters, Selectman Dini Healy-Coffin asked why the state has been so
slow in enacting the bill that has been in limbo on the House floor for
a few years now.
Morrisey said there are three basic groups that have voiced strong
opposition, as well as some legislators who have said they simply will
not support it.
According to Morrisey, one of the largest adoptee rights organizations
in the country, Bastard Nation, has argued a Safe Haven Law is an
endorsement for state sponsored identity erasure.
“Ultimately life is better than death,” Morrisey told selectmen. “A baby
that gets abandoned in the trash, because the parent fears prosecution,
is more likely to end up dead and never having the chance to have an
identity.”
Selectmen seemed in favor of the law, agreeing to discuss it further
with the possibility of bringing it to Town Meeting voters next year.
“I think for the comfort level of the town, we have to give people more
information about it first,” said Healy-Coffin. “But the issue appears
to be a no-brainer. We would never want to see such a tragedy happen
here in Westford.”

Gee, thanks for the plug!

Marley


"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031211202702.03858.00000709@mb-m07.aol.com... {Westford is one of the most serene suburban towns in MA, and home of
Kimball's Home Made Ice Cream stand. A Mass favorite, voted top in the state.} MASSACHUSETTS Couple lobbies board on safe baby bill By RITA SAVARD Lowell Sun Correspondent WESTFORD - Although Jean and Michael Morrisey never even knew their adopted daughter, Rebecca Mary, the newborn left an impression that they will forever remember. In November 2001, the infant was found dead in a Dorchester cemetery by a group of children who attended the nearby elementary school. Police said it was a clear case of abandonment. "She was laying on top of a towel, behind a tree," said Michael Morrisey. "Because of the elements, no one could be certain if she had been outside for two or three days." The medical examiner contacted Jean Morrisey, president of the American chapter of the Bonnie Babies Foundation, for help with the burial process. Bonnie Babies provides counseling to women and families in dealing with infant deaths. Because of state laws, the Morriseys had to adopt the baby in order to bury her. "It's a responsibility that we were more than willing to take on," Michael said. "Lowering a baby into the ground is something you don't forget. That image is in our mind and it's never going to change." Remembering how they met baby Rebecca Mary, who was named by the Lexington couple, continues to propel their cause as leading advocates of the Baby Safe Haven Law. Massachusetts is one of five states remaining, including Nebraska, Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont, without laws that allow parents to abandon an infant in a safe environment, such as a hospital emergency room, fire house or police station, and keep their anonymity without getting arrested. Michael Morrisey brought the issue before Westford selectmen last night, hoping Westford will eventually join the growing list of cities and towns across the state voting to support the law. Morrisey said that by next year he'd like to have 200 communities involved to assure the bill's passage in the House. Having heard the horrible stories of babies being left behind in Dumpsters, Selectman Dini Healy-Coffin asked why the state has been so slow in enacting the bill that has been in limbo on the House floor for a few years now. Morrisey said there are three basic groups that have voiced strong opposition, as well as some legislators who have said they simply will not support it. According to Morrisey, one of the largest adoptee rights organizations in the country, Bastard Nation, has argued a Safe Haven Law is an endorsement for state sponsored identity erasure. "Ultimately life is better than death," Morrisey told selectmen. "A baby that gets abandoned in the trash, because the parent fears prosecution, is more likely to end up dead and never having the chance to have an identity." Selectmen seemed in favor of the law, agreeing to discuss it further with the possibility of bringing it to Town Meeting voters next year. "I think for the comfort level of the town, we have to give people more information about it first," said Healy-Coffin. "But the issue appears to be a no-brainer. We would never want to see such a tragedy happen here in Westford."

<<<Gee, thanks for the plug!

Marley>>>

Don't mention it.
Stay tuned, there'll be a lot more to come.
Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031211230933.22060.00000478@mb-m19.aol.com... <<<Gee, thanks for the plug! Marley>>> Don't mention it. Stay tuned, there'll be a lot more to come. Jean

No doubt . Could you site the MA law which states you have to adopt a baby
to bury it? Thanks.

Marley

BabySafeHaven wrote:
{Westford is one of the most serene suburban towns in MA, and home of Kimball's Home Made Ice Cream stand. A Mass favorite, voted top in the state.} MASSACHUSETTS Couple lobbies board on safe baby bill By RITA SAVARD Lowell Sun Correspondent WESTFORD — Although Jean and Michael Morrisey never even knew their adopted daughter, Rebecca Mary, the newborn left an impression that they will forever remember.

You can't adopt dead children, you pathetic lying tragedy pimp.

Ron

Marley Greiner wrote:
"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031211230933.22060.00000478@mb-m19.aol.com... <<<Gee, thanks for the plug! Marley>>> Don't mention it. Stay tuned, there'll be a lot more to come. Jean No doubt . Could you site the MA law which states you have to adopt a baby to bury it? Thanks. Marley

I'd like to see a citation of procedures for adopting a dead child. Somebody
ought to let the Westtford selectmen know that they were being told tall
tales.

Ron

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FDA2B5D.E107F725@earthlink.net... Marley Greiner wrote: "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031211230933.22060.00000478@mb-m19.aol.com... <<<Gee, thanks for the plug! Marley>>> Don't mention it. Stay tuned, there'll be a lot more to come. Jean No doubt . Could you site the MA law which states you have to adopt a
baby to bury it? Thanks. Marley I'd like to see a citation of procedures for adopting a dead child.
Somebody ought to let the Westtford selectmen know that they were being told tall tales. Ron
I dunno about adopting the dead, but as far as burying the remains of
unidentified people, it goes something like this:

according to MGL Chapter 38 section 13:

" Section 13. After investigation or examination by the office, the body
shall be released to the person with the proper legal authority to receive
it, including the surviving spouse, the next of kin, or any friend of the
deceased, who shall have priority in the order named. If the body is
unidentified or unclaimed after the investigation is completed, the medical
examiner shall release it to the department of public welfare, which shall
bury it in accordance with section eighteen of chapter one hundred and
seventeen. Prior to the release of such unidentified or unclaimed body to
the department of public welfare, the chief medical examiner or his designee
shall certify to the city or town clerk in the municipality where the death
occurred the facts of the death as required by section nine of chapter
forty-six. If further identifying information is developed, the chief
medical examiner or his designee shall furnish a completed certificate of
death, as required by said section nine, to the city or town clerk"



The referred Chapter 117 section 18 was repealed and replaced with Chapter
117A section 9 which reads as follows:

"Chapter 117A: Section 9 Burials provided by department; recovery of
expenses

Section 9. The department shall provide for the decent burial of all
deceased persons who are at the time of death recipients of aid or
assistance under this chapter, all deceased persons who, although without
means of support at the time of death, did not apply for such aid or
assistance; and all unknown persons found dead. It shall also provide for
the grave of each such deceased person a suitable marker bearing the name
and dates of birth and death of such deceased person, if known, and for the
opening of such grave. The expense thereof may be recovered of their
kindred, if any, chargeable by law for their support in the manner provided
in this chapter; and if the expense of their funeral and burial is not paid
by such kindred, an amount not exceeding eleven hundred dollars; provided,
however, that the total expense of the funeral and burial does not exceed
fifteen hundred dollars; and provided, further, that any payment made by the
department shall be reduced by whatever resources may exist in the estate of
said person"



So there ya go. No reason to adopt the unknown dead, even if you could.


Jack

Thanks, Jack. I spent all morning looking for this and couldn't find it

Marley


"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:GKpCb.5350$uU5.2371@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m... "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3FDA2B5D.E107F725@earthlink.net... Marley Greiner wrote: "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031211230933.22060.00000478@mb-m19.aol.com... > <<<Gee, thanks for the plug! > > Marley>>> > > Don't mention it. > Stay tuned, there'll be a lot more to come. > Jean No doubt . Could you site the MA law which states you have to adopt a baby to bury it? Thanks. Marley I'd like to see a citation of procedures for adopting a dead child. Somebody ought to let the Westtford selectmen know that they were being told tall tales. Ron I dunno about adopting the dead, but as far as burying the remains of unidentified people, it goes something like this: according to MGL Chapter 38 section 13: " Section 13. After investigation or examination by the office, the body shall be released to the person with the proper legal authority to receive it, including the surviving spouse, the next of kin, or any friend of the deceased, who shall have priority in the order named. If the body is unidentified or unclaimed after the investigation is completed, the
medical examiner shall release it to the department of public welfare, which shall bury it in accordance with section eighteen of chapter one hundred and seventeen. Prior to the release of such unidentified or unclaimed body to the department of public welfare, the chief medical examiner or his
designee shall certify to the city or town clerk in the municipality where the
death occurred the facts of the death as required by section nine of chapter forty-six. If further identifying information is developed, the chief medical examiner or his designee shall furnish a completed certificate of death, as required by said section nine, to the city or town clerk" The referred Chapter 117 section 18 was repealed and replaced with Chapter 117A section 9 which reads as follows: "Chapter 117A: Section 9 Burials provided by department; recovery of expenses Section 9. The department shall provide for the decent burial of all deceased persons who are at the time of death recipients of aid or assistance under this chapter, all deceased persons who, although without means of support at the time of death, did not apply for such aid or assistance; and all unknown persons found dead. It shall also provide for the grave of each such deceased person a suitable marker bearing the name and dates of birth and death of such deceased person, if known, and for
the opening of such grave. The expense thereof may be recovered of their kindred, if any, chargeable by law for their support in the manner
provided in this chapter; and if the expense of their funeral and burial is not
paid by such kindred, an amount not exceeding eleven hundred dollars; provided, however, that the total expense of the funeral and burial does not exceed fifteen hundred dollars; and provided, further, that any payment made by
the department shall be reduced by whatever resources may exist in the estate
of said person" So there ya go. No reason to adopt the unknown dead, even if you could. Jack

Do you have a date of publication on this? It's not on the Lowell Sun
website. Thanks.

Marley


"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031211202702.03858.00000709@mb-m07.aol.com... {Westford is one of the most serene suburban towns in MA, and home of
Kimball's Home Made Ice Cream stand. A Mass favorite, voted top in the state.} MASSACHUSETTS Couple lobbies board on safe baby bill By RITA SAVARD Lowell Sun Correspondent WESTFORD - Although Jean and Michael Morrisey never even knew their adopted daughter, Rebecca Mary, the newborn left an impression that they will forever remember. In November 2001, the infant was found dead in a Dorchester cemetery by a group of children who attended the nearby elementary school. Police said it was a clear case of abandonment. "She was laying on top of a towel, behind a tree," said Michael Morrisey. "Because of the elements, no one could be certain if she had been outside for two or three days." The medical examiner contacted Jean Morrisey, president of the American chapter of the Bonnie Babies Foundation, for help with the burial process. Bonnie Babies provides counseling to women and families in dealing with infant deaths. Because of state laws, the Morriseys had to adopt the baby in order to bury her. "It's a responsibility that we were more than willing to take on," Michael said. "Lowering a baby into the ground is something you don't forget. That image is in our mind and it's never going to change." Remembering how they met baby Rebecca Mary, who was named by the Lexington couple, continues to propel their cause as leading advocates of the Baby Safe Haven Law. Massachusetts is one of five states remaining, including Nebraska, Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont, without laws that allow parents to abandon an infant in a safe environment, such as a hospital emergency room, fire house or police station, and keep their anonymity without getting arrested. Michael Morrisey brought the issue before Westford selectmen last night, hoping Westford will eventually join the growing list of cities and towns across the state voting to support the law. Morrisey said that by next year he'd like to have 200 communities involved to assure the bill's passage in the House. Having heard the horrible stories of babies being left behind in Dumpsters, Selectman Dini Healy-Coffin asked why the state has been so slow in enacting the bill that has been in limbo on the House floor for a few years now. Morrisey said there are three basic groups that have voiced strong opposition, as well as some legislators who have said they simply will not support it. According to Morrisey, one of the largest adoptee rights organizations in the country, Bastard Nation, has argued a Safe Haven Law is an endorsement for state sponsored identity erasure. "Ultimately life is better than death," Morrisey told selectmen. "A baby that gets abandoned in the trash, because the parent fears prosecution, is more likely to end up dead and never having the chance to have an identity." Selectmen seemed in favor of the law, agreeing to discuss it further with the possibility of bringing it to Town Meeting voters next year. "I think for the comfort level of the town, we have to give people more information about it first," said Healy-Coffin. "But the issue appears to be a no-brainer. We would never want to see such a tragedy happen here in Westford."

<<Thanks, Jack. I spent all morning looking for this and couldn't find it
Marley>>

No one is lying here. We didn't state she was our adopted daughter, but she was
treated as if she was. I guess the reporter of the story was using a bit of
creative writing.
We have no problem with that.
We know all about the MGL. Everything for Baby Rebecca Mary's burial was
legally set up for us by an attorney for the pro-life group that felt that they
could help.
Since the medical examiner wanted to see her have a decent burial, we stepped
in as a "friend of the deceased" so that she would not be placed in an unmarked
"potters grave" by the state.
We arranged for the funeral director, purchased the casket, grave site, and the
marker. The baby is buried in the same cemetery that she was found in, by our
request, even though there hadn't been a burial in many years at this 200 year
old cemetery in a very old section of Boston.
This was done because we felt it was important for her to be buried there, in
case the Mother, or family members, found out about her burial, and that they
would have a place to visit and pay their respects.
The story will be told on a Boston TV station in the next week. It was filmed a
few weeks back at her grave, and at a fire station two blocks from that site to
show that this would have been a better place for her to have been safely
surrendered at if we had a Baby Safe Haven law at the time.
So go ahead and tell the world you feel that we're liars. We have all the
letters, news stories, and documents to prove it all, and are open to any
questions by all of the municipal officials that ask.
Wishing you all a Blessed Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a prosperous New Year.

Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031212234623.22085.00000645@mb-m19.aol.com... <<Thanks, Jack. I spent all morning looking for this and couldn't find it Marley>> No one is lying here. We didn't state she was our adopted daughter, but
she was treated as if she was. I guess the reporter of the story was using a bit
of creative writing. We have no problem with that. We know all about the MGL. Everything for Baby Rebecca Mary's burial was legally set up for us by an attorney for the pro-life group that felt that
they could help. Since the medical examiner wanted to see her have a decent burial, we
stepped in as a "friend of the deceased" so that she would not be placed in an
unmarked "potters grave" by the state. We arranged for the funeral director, purchased the casket, grave site,
and the marker. The baby is buried in the same cemetery that she was found in, by
our request, even though there hadn't been a burial in many years at this 200
year old cemetery in a very old section of Boston. This was done because we felt it was important for her to be buried there,
in case the Mother, or family members, found out about her burial, and that
they would have a place to visit and pay their respects. The story will be told on a Boston TV station in the next week. It was
filmed a few weeks back at her grave, and at a fire station two blocks from that
site to show that this would have been a better place for her to have been safely surrendered at if we had a Baby Safe Haven law at the time. So go ahead and tell the world you feel that we're liars. We have all the letters, news stories, and documents to prove it all, and are open to any questions by all of the municipal officials that ask. Wishing you all a Blessed Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a prosperous New
Year. Jean

I never said you're a liar, Jean. It's just a litle odd that this "adoption"
story keeps popping up. This is the 4th or 5th time I've seen or heard it in
the media or here on alt.adoption. When I was on the radio with Mike the
first time he said the two of you adopted her. I think it *should* bother
you if that's the story going around. It's false and doesn't help your case
when you get called on it.

And a happy Christmas to you!


Marley

BabySafeHaven wrote:
<<Thanks, Jack. I spent all morning looking for this and couldn't find it Marley>> No one is lying here. We didn't state she was our adopted daughter, but she was treated as if she was. I guess the reporter of the story was using a bit of creative writing.

It would be easy enough to refute, if you weren't so interested in
self-aggrandiziing hagiography. "Gee, we never told her that we adopted a dead
baby..."
We have no problem with that.

I'll bet you don't. It stinks of the odor of sanctity.

So go ahead and tell the world you feel that we're liars. We have all the letters, news stories, and documents to prove it all, and are open to any questions by all of the municipal officials that ask.

I'm just wondering why the reporter felt the need to embellish the story in such a
way. If memory serves me correctly, you were willing to let the same untruth pass
on alt.adoption a while back, that you had adopted a dead child, until you were
pressed on the issue and your halo got tilted. I'll mosey over to Google and pull
up the exchange.

Wishing you all a Blessed Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a prosperous New Year. Jean

saints preserve us,
Ron

BabySafeHaven wrote:
<<Thanks, Jack. I spent all morning looking for this and couldn't find it Marley>> No one is lying here. We didn't state she was our adopted daughter, but she was treated as if she was. I guess the reporter of the story was using a bit of creative writing. We have no problem with that.

Here's a post archived on Google in which you do say you adopted her.

Lines: 16
X-Admin: news@aol.com
From: dsangelmom@aol.com (DSAngelMom)
Newsgroups: alt.adoption
Date: 11 Jul 2003 17:12:08 GMT
References: <btAPa.50276$3o3.3334189@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Winchester - A safe haven for newborns
Message-ID: <20030711131208.03018.00000234@mb-m27.aol.com>


<<<<Is that the same baby that Mr. M claimed on a couple occasions the two of
you "adopted" ? For the record I have no problem with you or anybody else
being allowed to properly bury these babies with dignity and care. What I
do object to in this context is the term "adopt." The dead cannot be
adopted. If they could, I'd be James Dean's mother.>>>

Yes, we did go through a legal process to take custody of Baby Rebecca, only
for her burial. We take care of the upkeep of her grave, visit when we can, as
that is all we can do for her. Maybe you wouldn't call it an adoption, but for
lack of a better word we do.
<<<And I'm sure she'll grow up thrilled in the knowledge that her so-called
parents had so little regard for her>>>

The two most important words in your statement are she'll "GROW UP!" End of
argument!
Jean




We know all about the MGL. Everything for Baby Rebecca Mary's burial was legally set up for us by an attorney for the pro-life group that felt that they could help. Since the medical examiner wanted to see her have a decent burial, we stepped in as a "friend of the deceased" so that she would not be placed in an unmarked "potters grave" by the state. We arranged for the funeral director, purchased the casket, grave site, and the marker. The baby is buried in the same cemetery that she was found in, by our request, even though there hadn't been a burial in many years at this 200 year old cemetery in a very old section of Boston. This was done because we felt it was important for her to be buried there, in case the Mother, or family members, found out about her burial, and that they would have a place to visit and pay their respects. The story will be told on a Boston TV station in the next week. It was filmed a few weeks back at her grave, and at a fire station two blocks from that site to show that this would have been a better place for her to have been safely surrendered at if we had a Baby Safe Haven law at the time. So go ahead and tell the world you feel that we're liars. We have all the letters, news stories, and documents to prove it all, and are open to any questions by all of the municipal officials that ask. Wishing you all a Blessed Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a prosperous New Year. Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031212234623.22085.00000645@mb-m19.aol.com... <<Thanks, Jack. I spent all morning looking for this and couldn't find it Marley>> No one is lying here. We didn't state she was our adopted daughter, but
she was treated as if she was. I guess the reporter of the story was using a bit
of creative writing.

Well, that's a euphemism for lying. She clearly states in her article that
the child is your adopted daughter. Furthmore she states that the adoption
was necessary for her to be buried. Both are simply untrue and, therefore,
lies. Try to follow along.



We have no problem with that.


No doubt. I know you guys want folks to refer to you as "angels".

We know all about the MGL. Everything for Baby Rebecca Mary's

Rebecca Mary Morrisey?


burial was legally set up for us by an attorney for the pro-life group that felt that
they could help. Since the medical examiner wanted to see her have a decent burial, we
stepped in as a "friend of the deceased"

Well, then you didn't treat her as an adopted daughter. You treated her as
a deceased friend. Sheesh, you guys are all over the place.



<snip>

So go ahead and tell the world you feel that we're liars. We have all the letters, news stories, and documents to prove it all, and are open to any questions by all of the municipal officials that ask.


Well, don't you think you should correct the reporter?

Wishing you all a Blessed Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a prosperous New
Year.

Backatcha.


Jack

<<Well, that's a euphemism for lying. She clearly states in her article that
the child is your adopted daughter. Furthmore she states that the adoption
was necessary for her to be buried. Both are simply untrue and, therefore,
lies. Try to follow along.>>

<<No doubt. I know you guys want folks to refer to you as "angels".>>

<<Rebecca Mary Morrisey?>>

<<Well, then you didn't treat her as an adopted daughter. You treated her as
a deceased friend. Sheesh, you guys are all over the place.>>

You are splitting hairs, for what I don't know?
"Friends of the deceased" is the legal term for use by the medical examiner's
office in order for us to take custody of the baby to make the arrangements for
her funeral. If anyone wants to use the word adopt in a story to explain the
actions we took then so be it. Even if we say that our actions were taken as if
she was adopted, that doesn't cross any legal boundaries of the legal sense of
the word adopt. In many ways it's another term for taking custody, which is
what most sensible people will interpret and understand.
You can adopt a cause, legislatures can adopt an amendment, highway signs say
that companies adopt a stretch of that highway.
Once again you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I don't see what
this has to do with the Baby Safe Haven laws in 45 states, and 97% of the US
population.
The tragedy of this baby's death far outweighs your squelching about the use of
a word on her behalf. Wouldn't it have been far better for her to have been
taken to that fire station 200 yards from where she was found dead, but instead
given to a fire fighter alive and well, then adopted to a family for a healthy
life due to a working Baby Safe Haven law in our state???
The tragedy of her death instead of a life due to a good law is what's
important here, not a definition of a word.
Have a merry white Christmas, with all the snow coming your way.
Jean

BabySafeHaven wrote:
<<Well, that's a euphemism for lying. She clearly states in her article that the child is your adopted daughter. Furthmore she states that the adoption was necessary for her to be buried. Both are simply untrue and, therefore, lies. Try to follow along.>> <<No doubt. I know you guys want folks to refer to you as "angels".>> <<Rebecca Mary Morrisey?>> <<Well, then you didn't treat her as an adopted daughter. You treated her as a deceased friend. Sheesh, you guys are all over the place.>> You are splitting hairs, for what I don't know? "Friends of the deceased" is the legal term for use by the medical examiner's office in order for us to take custody of the baby to make the arrangements for her funeral. If anyone wants to use the word adopt in a story to explain the actions we took then so be it. Even if we say that our actions were taken as if she was adopted, that doesn't cross any legal boundaries of the legal sense of the word adopt.

"As if" only counts in make believe.
In many ways it's another term for taking custody, which is what most sensible people will interpret and understand.
You can adopt a cause, legislatures can adopt an amendment, highway signs say that companies adopt a stretch of that highway.

But you cannot adopt a child except through the statutory procedures of your
state. You can take custody of a child in a number of ways, even take custody of
their remains, but that does not mean you've adopted them. Adoption of a child is
a specific legal act.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill? I don't think so. I think it goes to the
heart of the matter. Baby Rebecca is your fantasy adopted child. Safe Havens are
your adopted cause. Your advocacy is driven by this fantasy adoption, this is why
you won't correct the erroneous reports that you adopted Baby Rebecca. You like
this conflation and confusion, it feeds your sense that you did actually adopt her
through a legal process of gaining custody of her remains. The fantasy that you
adopted Rebecca allows you to pretend that she is yours. You like the public
sharing this fantasy with you, it validates it, and consecrates the aura that you
are advocating for her, rather than for yourselves.

The magical thinking that allows you to believe that you've adopted Baby Rebecca
also allows you to believe that Safe Havens are the best and only remedy to infant
abandonment. I think it's telling that your fantasy alternative to Baby Rebecca's
death is so narrowly cast, if only she'd been abandoned to the firefighter down
the road... There are so many alternatives you don't even begin to entertain. I
wish that Baby Rebecca's mother had had a safe haven of her own, some place to get
treatment for what ailed her, or counseled for what bothered her, and that she
kept Baby Rebecca. I wish Baby Rebecca had been relinquished under existing
statutes, after her mother had been treated for whatever crisis she was going
through, and adopted legally. I really do. I think it's a true shame that she was
left to die, only to be exploited after her death by you two.

Ron

<<<But you cannot adopt a child except through the statutory procedures of your
state. You can take custody of a child in a number of ways, even take custody
of
their remains, but that does not mean you've adopted them. Adoption of a child
is
a specific legal act.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill? I don't think so. I think it goes to the
heart of the matter. Baby Rebecca is your fantasy adopted child. Safe Havens
are
your adopted cause. Your advocacy is driven by this fantasy adoption, this is
why
you won't correct the erroneous reports that you adopted Baby Rebecca. You like
this conflation and confusion, it feeds your sense that you did actually adopt
her
through a legal process of gaining custody of her remains. The fantasy that you
adopted Rebecca allows you to pretend that she is yours. You like the public
sharing this fantasy with you, it validates it, and consecrates the aura that
you
are advocating for her, rather than for yourselves.

The magical thinking that allows you to believe that you've adopted Baby
Rebecca
also allows you to believe that Safe Havens are the best and only remedy to
infant
abandonment. I think it's telling that your fantasy alternative to Baby
Rebecca's
death is so narrowly cast, if only she'd been abandoned to the firefighter down
the road... There are so many alternatives you don't even begin to entertain. I
wish that Baby Rebecca's mother had had a safe haven of her own, some place to
get
treatment for what ailed her, or counseled for what bothered her, and that she
kept Baby Rebecca. I wish Baby Rebecca had been relinquished under existing
statutes, after her mother had been treated for whatever crisis she was going
through, and adopted legally. I really do. I think it's a true shame that she
was
left to die, only to be exploited after her death by you two.

Ron>>>

You keep talking about fantasy and concepts, and we keep working in the real
world of newborns being left for dead in cemeteries, thrown in rivers, and
thrown away in trash bags in dormitory basements. And those are just three of
the six deadly abandonments here in MA in the last three years.
We wish that Baby Rebecca's Mom, and the five other Moms, had gotten all of the
prenatal counseling and care they needed, but that would be living in a fantasy
world because they didn't.
The Baby Safe Haven law is the necessary last safety net to keep these six
deadly tragedies from hopefully never happening again here in MA.
It's also for the Mom's sake as when she comes forward to the safe haven she
can be offered assistance, without fear of prosecution.
If we though that Baby Rebecca was ours, as your fantasy has decided, then why
does her grave marker only say "Baby Rebecca Mary," and the date. Then why
didn't we choose to bury her in our family plot, and instead went to great
lengths and expense to have her buried in the same cemetery where she was
found, and she was the last burial there in the last 10+ years.
We hope someday that one of her family members will find out where she is, and
we hope and pray that they may be able to visit and pay last respects close to
their home.
We deal with reality, and did the right thing for Baby Rebecca, and make sure
her memory lives on.
Her story has already inspired several other Baby Safe Haven advocates in other
states, and newborn's have been safely surrendered, even here in our own state.

The sad reality is that we don't live in a perfect world.
Jean

BabySafeHaven wrote:
<<<But you cannot adopt a child except through the statutory procedures of your state. You can take custody of a child in a number of ways, even take custody of their remains, but that does not mean you've adopted them. Adoption of a child is a specific legal act. Making a mountain out of a mole hill? I don't think so. I think it goes to the heart of the matter. Baby Rebecca is your fantasy adopted child. Safe Havens are your adopted cause. Your advocacy is driven by this fantasy adoption, this is why you won't correct the erroneous reports that you adopted Baby Rebecca. You like this conflation and confusion, it feeds your sense that you did actually adopt her through a legal process of gaining custody of her remains. The fantasy that you adopted Rebecca allows you to pretend that she is yours. You like the public sharing this fantasy with you, it validates it, and consecrates the aura that you are advocating for her, rather than for yourselves. The magical thinking that allows you to believe that you've adopted Baby Rebecca also allows you to believe that Safe Havens are the best and only remedy to infant abandonment. I think it's telling that your fantasy alternative to Baby Rebecca's death is so narrowly cast, if only she'd been abandoned to the firefighter down the road... There are so many alternatives you don't even begin to entertain. I wish that Baby Rebecca's mother had had a safe haven of her own, some place to get treatment for what ailed her, or counseled for what bothered her, and that she kept Baby Rebecca. I wish Baby Rebecca had been relinquished under existing statutes, after her mother had been treated for whatever crisis she was going through, and adopted legally. I really do. I think it's a true shame that she was left to die, only to be exploited after her death by you two. Ron>>> You keep talking about fantasy and concepts, and we keep working in the real world of newborns being left for dead in cemeteries, thrown in rivers, and thrown away in trash bags in dormitory basements. And those are just three of the six deadly abandonments here in MA in the last three years. We wish that Baby Rebecca's Mom, and the five other Moms, had gotten all of the prenatal counseling and care they needed, but that would be living in a fantasy world because they didn't.

Yeah, and a No Blame No Shame No Name campaign simply enables more women to avoid
essential services.
The Baby Safe Haven law is the necessary last safety net to keep these six deadly tragedies from hopefully never happening again here in MA. It's also for the Mom's sake as when she comes forward to the safe haven she can be offered assistance, without fear of prosecution.

I'm all for creating a statute that waives prosecution for women who abandon their
children to hospitals or other designated sites. If Safe Havens simply did this,
I'd be right there with you testifying for them.
If we though that Baby Rebecca was ours, as your fantasy has decided, then why does her grave marker only say "Baby Rebecca Mary," and the date. Then why didn't we choose to bury her in our family plot, and instead went to great lengths and expense to have her buried in the same cemetery where she was found, and she was the last burial there in the last 10+ years. We hope someday that one of her family members will find out where she is, and we hope and pray that they may be able to visit and pay last respects close to their home. We deal with reality, and did the right thing for Baby Rebecca, and make sure her memory lives on. Her story has already inspired several other Baby Safe Haven advocates in other states, and newborn's have been safely surrendered, even here in our own state.

Gee, how do they manage to surrender safely in Mass without a Safe Haven bill? Oh,
I forgot, there are existing laws that allow women to reliqush if they can't or
won't take care of their child...

Ron
The sad reality is that we don't live in a perfect world.


Jean

<<If Safe Havens simply did this,
I'd be right there with you testifying for them.>>

<<Gee, how do they manage to surrender safely in Mass without a Safe Haven
bill? Oh, I forgot, there are existing laws that allow women to reliqush if
they can't or
won't take care of their child...

Ron>>>

Here's what Baby Rebecca Mary inspired here in MA. Also since the CT law has
been publicized further more newborns are alive today, that might have met the
same fate as the ones abandoned for dead before the law was passed.
Get ready to start testifying in favor.
Jean

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0KYL/2002_April_18/87090562/p1/article
..jhtml

::: No Coincidences: A Story of Safe Havens for Children.
GoodLetter, April 18, 2002

The impassioned work of a dedicated advocate for children saves a life and
lends energy to a movement.

Fellow GoodLetter readers,

I was struck by the fact that there really are no such things as coincidences
in early February of this year. I received a call from my friend Jean Morrissey
in Massachusetts. Jean and I had met several months earlier via the Internet. I
had been corresponding with a colleague of hers in Florida who worked for the
Bonnie Babes Foundation (a miscarriage and stillbirth support organization).
Jean had been scheduled to be on my public-access television show, Robyn's
Nest, but had taken a fall that day and was unable to appear. Little did I know
at that time, how important our relationship was to be.

In November 2001, Jean contacted me about a newborn baby that had been found by
local schoolchildren in a cemetery near Boston. The perfect little baby girl,
who became known as "Baby Rebecca Mary," was found dead, apparently from
exposure to the frigid temperatures that blanketed the area around Halloween. I
was heartbroken. I had recently heard other upsetting stories of abandonment,
one about a baby found alive in a trash bin in Connecticut, the other of a baby
left to drown in a toilet in a New York courthouse. I was remembering a story
from several years ago, when I lived in Florida, of a young couple who stood
trial for killing their newborn, and I found myself crying. How could anyone do
this? I kept trying to make excuses in my head for the kind of hopelessness
that led these parents to do these things to their babies. My mind was racing
with possible explanations: "They must be very sick...they must be on
drugs...maybe the mother was beaten by a boyfriend." I was confused and
bewildered, but what was clear to me at that moment was that I had to do
something.

In 1998, the most recent year for which such statistics exist, there were 105
documented cases of infant abandonment. Clearly, fear of prosecution among
parents not prepared to take care of their newborns was resulting in
unspeakable tragedies. I learned about the concept of "Safe Haven" laws, which
protect parents of unwanted babies in 35 states from prosecution for dropping
off newborns at hospitals and other designated "safe havens." These laws give
abandoned children a chance and offer unfit parents a humane choice. What I
also found was that in my home state of Connecticut, a so-called "Safe Haven"
law had been signed into law in 2000, but no one seemed to know about it. A
baby had just been left in a restaurant garbage can several months before.

I decided to tape a show on the issue and contacted Jean again. She told me
that Massachusetts was among the 15 states that don't have "Safe Haven" laws.
Apparently, a proposed Massachusetts bill had been languishing in legislative
committees for something like three years. We taped a 30-minute show featuring
Tim Jaccard, founder of the New York-based AMT Children of Hope Foundation, an
organization that last year alone counseled 3,411 people considering infant
abandonment via its toll-free hotline. Tim was joined on the show by
Connecticut State Representative Ann Dandrow (sponsor of the Connecticut "Safe
Haven" law), Massachusetts State Representative Tom O'Brien, and Jean and Mike
Morrissey. Later on the evening of the taping, when we learned another baby had
been abandoned in a public place in Massachusetts, we knew the show needed to
air soon.
The show started airing in Connecticut the first week of February 2002 around
the time my family and I left for vacation in Florida. We were changing
airplanes in Cincinnati when I received two voice mail messages, one from Tim
Jaccard and one from the Morrisseys. Among the nearly two dozen phone calls to
the Children of Hope hotline from Connecticut residents that week, one was from
a young man who called the hotline wanting information about relinquishing a
30-day premature infant who had been born at home that very day. The caller
stated that he had just seen the Robyn's Nest show on safe havens! The crisis
worker informed him that since he was calling from Connecticut, not only could
he drop the baby off at any hospital emergency room without fear of
prosecution, but also he and his girlfriend could have up to 30 days to change
their minds. What the crisis worker didn't know was that the baby would soon be
left in Springfield, Massachusetts, which happened to have the closest hospital
to where the parents lived. Safe-haven advocates commended their action,
because being left at this "safe haven" probably saved this baby's life. But
since it was Massachusetts, unfortunately a non-safe haven state, local law
enforcement intended to press charges (although to date, they have not been
able to locate the parents).

Of course, the circumstances of this child's first few days were heartbreaking,
but the child is alive today, which is better than what can be said for the
unwanted children of parents who don't know about the concept of safe havens. I
must admit to having been ecstatic at what's happened since. The case of this
particular child put into motion a sequence of events leading to pressure on
the Massachusetts legislature to move forward on its proposed "Safe Haven" bill
(House Bill 4453). While the bill is still making its way through committee, it
has moved two giant steps forward in the process.

No doubt, the decision to abandon a baby is a desperate one, and I would never
argue that we should encourage use of safe havens as an option unless it's the
very last option. But "Safe Haven" laws work, and where child welfare is
concerned, that means everything to me. Through my connection to my friend Jean
Morrissey, I'm thrilled to have played a small part in moving something forward
that I truly believe makes a difference.

:: Robyn B. Surdel

Tolland, Connecticut

Robyn is a mother of two who took her quest for parenting information from the
Web to television and print media. She hosts and produces "Robyn's Nest: The
Parenting Network" television series in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New
York, writes a newspaper column on parenting, and designs and maintains
RobynsNest.com, an interactive parenting Web site. Her favorite goodthings? "A
sunny beach. The smell of a newborn baby. The sounds of my young sons' giggles.
A good book in front of an open fire."

"DSAngelMom" <dsangelmom@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031215083711.26112.00000850@mb-m15.aol.com... <<If Safe Havens simply did this, I'd be right there with you testifying for them.>> <<Gee, how do they manage to surrender safely in Mass without a Safe Haven bill? Oh, I forgot, there are existing laws that allow women to reliqush
if they can't or won't take care of their child... Ron>>> Here's what Baby Rebecca Mary inspired here in MA. Also since the CT law
has been publicized further more newborns are alive today, that might have met
the same fate as the ones abandoned for dead before the law was passed. Get ready to start testifying in favor. Jean

How do you know this? So SH drop-off points take customer surveys? Pepsi
or Coke? Coke or Pepsi? Kill or Safe Haven? Safe Haven or Kill? What's a
parent to do with so many options? Do the people who "non bureaucratically
place " their kid say, "Oh, I'm so glad that this consumer choice is now
available to me. Otherwise, I'd have killed it?"

Marley

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0KYL/2002_April_18/87090562/p1/article .jhtml ::: No Coincidences: A Story of Safe Havens for Children. GoodLetter, April 18, 2002 The impassioned work of a dedicated advocate for children saves a life and lends energy to a movement. Fellow GoodLetter readers, I was struck by the fact that there really are no such things as
coincidences in early February of this year. I received a call from my friend Jean
Morrissey in Massachusetts. Jean and I had met several months earlier via the
Internet. I had been corresponding with a colleague of hers in Florida who worked for
the Bonnie Babes Foundation (a miscarriage and stillbirth support
organization). Jean had been scheduled to be on my public-access television show, Robyn's Nest, but had taken a fall that day and was unable to appear. Little did I
know at that time, how important our relationship was to be. In November 2001, Jean contacted me about a newborn baby that had been
found by local schoolchildren in a cemetery near Boston. The perfect little baby
girl, who became known as "Baby Rebecca Mary," was found dead, apparently from exposure to the frigid temperatures that blanketed the area around
Halloween. I was heartbroken. I had recently heard other upsetting stories of
abandonment, one about a baby found alive in a trash bin in Connecticut, the other of a
baby left to drown in a toilet in a New York courthouse. I was remembering a
story from several years ago, when I lived in Florida, of a young couple who
stood trial for killing their newborn, and I found myself crying. How could
anyone do this? I kept trying to make excuses in my head for the kind of
hopelessness that led these parents to do these things to their babies. My mind was
racing with possible explanations: "They must be very sick...they must be on drugs...maybe the mother was beaten by a boyfriend." I was confused and bewildered, but what was clear to me at that moment was that I had to do something. In 1998, the most recent year for which such statistics exist, there were
105 documented cases of infant abandonment. Clearly, fear of prosecution among parents not prepared to take care of their newborns was resulting in unspeakable tragedies. I learned about the concept of "Safe Haven" laws,
which protect parents of unwanted babies in 35 states from prosecution for
dropping off newborns at hospitals and other designated "safe havens." These laws
give abandoned children a chance and offer unfit parents a humane choice. What
I also found was that in my home state of Connecticut, a so-called "Safe
Haven" law had been signed into law in 2000, but no one seemed to know about it.
A baby had just been left in a restaurant garbage can several months before. I decided to tape a show on the issue and contacted Jean again. She told
me that Massachusetts was among the 15 states that don't have "Safe Haven"
laws. Apparently, a proposed Massachusetts bill had been languishing in
legislative committees for something like three years. We taped a 30-minute show
featuring Tim Jaccard, founder of the New York-based AMT Children of Hope
Foundation, an organization that last year alone counseled 3,411 people considering
infant abandonment via its toll-free hotline. Tim was joined on the show by Connecticut State Representative Ann Dandrow (sponsor of the Connecticut
"Safe Haven" law), Massachusetts State Representative Tom O'Brien, and Jean and
Mike Morrissey. Later on the evening of the taping, when we learned another
baby had been abandoned in a public place in Massachusetts, we knew the show needed
to air soon. The show started airing in Connecticut the first week of February 2002
around the time my family and I left for vacation in Florida. We were changing airplanes in Cincinnati when I received two voice mail messages, one from
Tim Jaccard and one from the Morrisseys. Among the nearly two dozen phone
calls to the Children of Hope hotline from Connecticut residents that week, one was
from a young man who called the hotline wanting information about relinquishing
a 30-day premature infant who had been born at home that very day. The
caller stated that he had just seen the Robyn's Nest show on safe havens! The
crisis worker informed him that since he was calling from Connecticut, not only
could he drop the baby off at any hospital emergency room without fear of prosecution, but also he and his girlfriend could have up to 30 days to
change their minds. What the crisis worker didn't know was that the baby would
soon be left in Springfield, Massachusetts, which happened to have the closest
hospital to where the parents lived. Safe-haven advocates commended their action, because being left at this "safe haven" probably saved this baby's life.
But since it was Massachusetts, unfortunately a non-safe haven state, local
law enforcement intended to press charges (although to date, they have not
been able to locate the parents). Of course, the circumstances of this child's first few days were
heartbreaking, but the child is alive today, which is better than what can be said for
the unwanted children of parents who don't know about the concept of safe
havens. I must admit to having been ecstatic at what's happened since. The case of
this particular child put into motion a sequence of events leading to pressure
on the Massachusetts legislature to move forward on its proposed "Safe Haven"
bill (House Bill 4453). While the bill is still making its way through
committee, it has moved two giant steps forward in the process. No doubt, the decision to abandon a baby is a desperate one, and I would
never argue that we should encourage use of safe havens as an option unless it's
the very last option. But "Safe Haven" laws work, and where child welfare is concerned, that means everything to me. Through my connection to my friend
Jean Morrissey, I'm thrilled to have played a small part in moving something
forward that I truly believe makes a difference. :: Robyn B. Surdel Tolland, Connecticut Robyn is a mother of two who took her quest for parenting information from
the Web to television and print media. She hosts and produces "Robyn's Nest:
The Parenting Network" television series in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
New York, writes a newspaper column on parenting, and designs and maintains RobynsNest.com, an interactive parenting Web site. Her favorite
goodthings? "A sunny beach. The smell of a newborn baby. The sounds of my young sons'
giggles. A good book in front of an open fire."

In article <20031214223302.26083.00000956@mb-m06.aol.com>,
babysafehaven@aol.com (BabySafeHaven) writes:
<<<But you cannot adopt a child except through the statutory procedures ofyourstate. You can take custody of a child in a number of ways, even take custodyoftheir remains, but that does not mean you've adopted them. Adoption of achildisa specific legal act.Making a mountain out of a mole hill? I don't think so. I think it goes totheheart of the matter. Baby Rebecca is your fantasy adopted child. Safe Havensareyour adopted cause. Your advocacy is driven by this fantasy adoption, this iswhyyou won't correct the erroneous reports that you adopted Baby Rebecca. Youlikethis conflation and confusion, it feeds your sense that you did actuallyadoptherthrough a legal process of gaining custody of her remains. The fantasy thatyouadopted Rebecca allows you to pretend that she is yours. You like the publicsharing this fantasy with you, it validates it, and consecrates the aura thatyouare advocating for her, rather than for yourselves.The magical thinking that allows you to believe that you've adopted BabyRebeccaalso allows you to believe that Safe Havens are the best and only remedy toinfantabandonment. I think it's telling that your fantasy alternative to BabyRebecca'sdeath is so narrowly cast, if only she'd been abandoned to the firefighterdownthe road... There are so many alternatives you don't even begin to entertain.Iwish that Baby Rebecca's mother had had a safe haven of her own, some placetogettreatment for what ailed her, or counseled for what bothered her, and thatshekept Baby Rebecca. I wish Baby Rebecca had been relinquished under existingstatutes, after her mother had been treated for whatever crisis she was goingthrough, and adopted legally. I really do. I think it's a true shame that shewasleft to die, only to be exploited after her death by you two.Ron>>>You keep talking about fantasy and concepts, and we keep working in the realworld of newborns being left for dead in cemeteries, thrown in rivers, andthrown away in trash bags in dormitory basements. And those are just three ofthe six deadly abandonments here in MA in the last three years.We wish that Baby Rebecca's Mom, and the five other Moms, had gotten all oftheprenatal counseling and care they needed, but that would be living in afantasyworld because they didn't.The Baby Safe Haven law is the necessary last safety net to keep these sixdeadly tragedies from hopefully never happening again here in MA.It's also for the Mom's sake as when she comes forward to the safe haven shecan be offered assistance, without fear of prosecution.If we though that Baby Rebecca was ours, as your fantasy has decided, thenwhydoes her grave marker only say "Baby Rebecca Mary," and the date. Then whydidn't we choose to bury her in our family plot, and instead went to greatlengths and expense to have her buried in the same cemetery where she wasfound, and she was the last burial there in the last 10+ years.We hope someday that one of her family members will find out where she is,andwe hope and pray that they may be able to visit and pay last respects closetotheir home.We deal with reality, and did the right thing for Baby Rebecca, and make sureher memory lives on.Her story has already inspired several other Baby Safe Haven advocates inotherstates, and newborn's have been safely surrendered, even here in our ownstate.The sad reality is that we don't live in a perfect world.Jean

The sad reality is that Safe-Haven laws don't do crap to save throwaway
children.

KL