MASSACHUSETTS
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/15/activis
ts_seek_law_to_provide_safety_net_for_abandoned_in fants

REGION
Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandoned infants
By Sandy Coleman, Globe Staff, 2/15/2004

Marion Bois, a mother of four and grandmother of five, has lived in Whitman for
47 years. She says that she can't recall a baby ever being abandoned in town,
but that she has read enough about it happening elsewhere to inspire her to
promote a proposal that would allow parents to abandon newborns safely and
without being prosecuted.

"That college girl threw her baby in the Dumpster," said Bois, referring to a
May 2002 incident in which a dead newborn belonging to a 19-year-old University
of Massachusetts-Amherst student was found in a dormitory trash bin.

"Why should a baby have to die when he could be brought to a hospital?" she
said. "These are young girls, and they really haven't lived their lives yet.
And if they don't have a supportive family and they are away from home, they
feel desperate. That's when this happens."

Bois said she helped collect signatures to place on Whitman's May 3 Town
Meeting warrant a home rule petition for a Baby Safe Haven law that would
prevent such deaths. Home rule petitions, if approved by town meetings, must
then be approved by the state Legislature. They allow individual communities to
enact specialized laws.

In Wareham, the Board of Selectmen has placed a similar home rule petition on
the April 26 Town Meeting warrant. And in Dedham, officials say they will
probably consider the issue by the end of the year. Selectmen support the idea,
but want more time to review the language, said Nancy Baker, Dedham's assistant
town administrator.

Local officials pushing the petitions are responding to the campaign of a
Lexington couple for a Baby Safe Haven law. The measure would allow a parent or
family representative to drop off an infant 7 days old or younger at a police
station, fire house, or hospital in a particular community. The parent or
representative would not be required to give a name and would not be subject to
criminal charges.

Michael and Jean Morrisey began approaching towns last May, because they said
they doubted the state Legislature would otherwise support their campaign.

State Representative Kathleen M. Teahan, a Whitman Democrat and a member of the
Legislature's health care and state administration committees, has been
lobbying against the law. She believes it could encourage more people to
abandon infants and would divert funds from agencies that help place abandoned
babies in homes.

"A woman who is in denial of her pregnancy is not thinking about prosecution,
and she is not going to bring a baby to a fire station or a police station or a
hospital," said Teahan. Also, she said, a haven law may make people who would
have gone to an adoption agency consider abandonment instead.

Michael Morrisey, a freelance television producer, said he and his wife became
involved in the issue after they helped arrange for the burial of an abandoned
baby in 2001. "We've all read the stories of newborns being found in garbage
cans and alleyways," said Morrisey. He said in the past three years, 10
newborns have been abandoned in Massachusetts. Six of them died.

The Legislature is currently considering a safe haven bill. Last month, Teahan
sent a letter to her legislative colleagues saying that although she had once
supported the bill, she has changed her mind after reviewing the issue.

"We have learned that such laws in other states have not discouraged parents
from unsafely abandoning their babies," Teahan wrote in the Jan. 12 letter.

She says that hospitals and social service agencies already provide havens
where women can take babies without fear of prosecution.

"It's only when you put your baby in the toilet that you are prosecuted," she
said, referring to a high-profile case in 2000 in which a woman abandoned her
baby after delivering him in a bathroom at Logan Airport. "I think it's
feel-good legislation to make the public think we've solved a problem that is
so much more complicated."

"The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are finding it to be
very costly, because they are having all kinds of lawsuits from fathers who
never knew" about the baby's existence, Teehan said.

Another problem, she said, is that parents who abandon babies through havens
probably will not provide vital information, such as a medical history.

Morrisey said police and fire stations and hospitals could provide a mechanism
for parents to provide medical information without losing their anonymity.

Frank Lynam, Whitman's town administrator, said he finds it difficult to
"imagine a situation where it would be a bad idea to provide for the safe
placement of an infant that might otherwise face a horrible fate." But he said
that Town Meeting should determine the need for a haven law in town.

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040215083106.12611.00002364@mb-m29.aol.com...
"The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are finding it
to be very costly, because they are having all kinds of lawsuits from fathers
who never knew" about the baby's existence, Teehan said.

I wonder if Mike or Jean have a solution for this.

Another problem, she said, is that parents who abandon babies through
havens probably will not provide vital information, such as a medical history. Morrisey said police and fire stations and hospitals could provide a
mechanism for parents to provide medical information without losing their anonymity.


Only if they choose to do so, right?

Will someone explain why a person who is theoretically choosing between a
dumpster toss (since this is the target demographic) and just dumping the
"unwanted infant" at the nearest SH point, would even bother with providing
a medical history?

Jack

<<<> "The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are finding it
to be very costly, because they are having all kinds of lawsuits from fathers
who never knew" about the baby's existence, Teehan said.

I wonder if Mike or Jean have a solution for this.>>>

".....they are having all kinds of lawsuits..."
One has to wonder where this state rep gets this kind of info. I'm sure her
constituents are wondering if she is planning to work full time on trying to
overturn the 45 existing Baby Safe Haven laws.
Plus, she claims to have switched her vote to be against passing our law now.
Funny thing is that since we became involved we knew she was lobbying against
passage since day one of the filing four years ago. I guess we'll just have to
see if her constituents agree with her claims, and vote for this in her own
home town, as it's the citizens who have the voice.
I guess it's time for a public debate in her, in her home town.
She will have to contend with 7 cities and towns already passing the Baby Safe
Haven home rule petition, and 20 more towns with the exact same petition on
their upcoming town meetings. So far passage has been with an average 97%
favorable vote.
Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040215120936.19352.00001334@mb-m26.aol.com... <<<> "The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are
finding it to be very costly, because they are having all kinds of lawsuits from fathers who never knew" about the baby's existence, Teehan said. I wonder if Mike or Jean have a solution for this.>>> ".....they are having all kinds of lawsuits..." One has to wonder where this state rep gets this kind of info.

Perhaps she actually researches the issue.

I'm sure her constituents are wondering if she is planning to work full time on trying
to overturn the 45 existing Baby Safe Haven laws.

Why would they wonder that? It enver occured to me that she might spend her
time in that manner.

Plus, she claims to have switched her vote to be against passing our law
now. Funny thing is that since we became involved we knew she was lobbying
against passage since day one of the filing four years ago. I guess we'll just
have to see if her constituents agree with her claims, and vote for this in her
own home town, as it's the citizens who have the voice.

Pehaps she agreed with it at the very beginning and then changed her mind.
I guess it's time for a public debate in her, in her home town. She will have to contend with 7 cities and towns already passing the Baby
Safe Haven home rule petition, and 20 more towns with the exact same petition
on their upcoming town meetings. So far passage has been with an average 97% favorable vote.

Have you read Dr. Pavao's comments on SH?

Marley Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040215120936.19352.00001334@mb-m26.aol.com... <<<> "The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are
finding it to be very costly, because they are having all kinds of lawsuits from fathers who never knew" about the baby's existence, Teehan said. I wonder if Mike or Jean have a solution for this.>>> ".....they are having all kinds of lawsuits..." One has to wonder where this state rep gets this kind of info. I'm sure
her constituents are wondering if she is planning to work full time on trying
to overturn the 45 existing Baby Safe Haven laws.

I doubt it. It seems to be a back burner issue this session.


Plus, she claims to have switched her vote to be against passing our law
now. Funny thing is that since we became involved we knew she was lobbying
against passage since day one of the filing four years ago. I guess we'll just
have to see if her constituents agree with her claims, and vote for this in her
own home town, as it's the citizens who have the voice. I guess it's time for a public debate in her, in her home town. She will have to contend with 7 cities and towns already passing the Baby
Safe Haven home rule petition, and 20 more towns with the exact same petition
on their upcoming town meetings. So far passage has been with an average 97% favorable vote.



Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your version of SH
propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring?

Jack

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8WNXb.36582$il6.31261@newssvr33.news.prodigy. com... "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040215120936.19352.00001334@mb-m26.aol.com... <<<> "The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are
Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your version of
SH propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring? Jack

It doesn't.

Marley

>Subject: Re: MA - Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandonedinfantsFrom: "Marley Greiner" maddogmarley@worldnet.att.netDate: 2/15/04 9:37 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <U7OXb.25496$hR.673447@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:8WNXb.36582$il6.31261@newssvr33.news.p rodigy.com... "BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040215120936.19352.00001334@mb-m26.aol.com... <<<> "The bill is being reviewed in many other states, and they are Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your version ofSH propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring? JackIt doesn't.Marley

Sad that the makers of these safe haven laws have no integrity. Morons.


Diane Welfare, "she describes the US market as a "$US1.4 billion business in
baby trafficking". ~~121603
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/15/1071336884771.html

<<<Perhaps she actually researches the issue.>>>
Perhaps she just claims to have researched, or is just is just repeating
someone else's supposed research, and we have never seen one word of this
"research."

<<<Why would they wonder that? It enver occured to me that she might spend her
time in that manner.>>>
I'm sure her constituents are wondering what she's doing with her time, but
she's not speaking on their behalf if they have to collect signatures to get
laws passed because she's one of the tiny few who opposes the state wide law
they want to see passed.

<<<Pehaps she agreed with it at the very beginning and then changed her mind.>>


Another flip-flop, very interesting, especially if she's working so hard
opposing all 45 Baby Safe Haven laws. What if she flip-flops back to supporting
it next week?

<<<<Have you read Dr. Pavao's comments on SH?>>>
Why? Does he live in Whitman? Maybe the representative from Whitman can have
him come forward at an upcoming open forum on Baby Safe Haven laws in that
town. Then the town can make a clear decision at their Town Meeting and vote as
seven other MA municipalities have. We always make sure both sides are well
represented. So far the votes have been 605 for, to only 24 against, and all
were elected municipal officials.
Jean

<<<Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your version of SH
propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring?

Jack>>>>

We are the Fathered Rights advocates.
In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father. Then your
rights are matched by your responsibilities.
So Blah, blah, blah..
Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040215164706.13477.00001925@mb-m24.aol.com... <<<Perhaps she actually researches the issue.>>>
Perhaps she just claims to have researched, or is just is just repeating someone else's supposed research, and we have never seen one word of this "research."

Actually, she's done quite a bit of research, unlike many of the proponents. <<<Why would they wonder that? It enver occured to me that she might
spend her time in that manner.>>>
I'm sure her constituents are wondering what she's doing with her time,
but she's not speaking on their behalf if they have to collect signatures to
get laws passed because she's one of the tiny few who opposes the state wide
law they want to see passed.

That's politics. People collect signatures all the time. They're always
doing it here to legalize pot. Lots of Ohio citizens would like to toke up
legally, but I don't see many Reps going along with it. <<<Pehaps she agreed with it at the very beginning and then changed her
mind.>> Another flip-flop, very interesting, especially if she's working so hard opposing all 45 Baby Safe Haven laws. What if she flip-flops back to
supporting it next week?

She is? First I've heard about it. I suspect that at the moment she's more
busy with all those pesky Massachusetts queers demanding to get married.
The next thing you know, they'll want to adopt abandoned babies. Or since
queers are usually limited to adopting the "unadoptable" perhaps they should
get first dibs on the little wanderers. <<<<Have you read Dr. Pavao's comments on SH?>>>
Why? Does he live in Whitman? Maybe the representative from Whitman can
have him come forward at an upcoming open forum on Baby Safe Haven laws in that town. Then the town can make a clear decision at their Town Meeting and
vote as seven other MA municipalities have. We always make sure both sides are
well represented. So far the votes have been 605 for, to only 24 against, and
all were elected municipal officials.

It's Dr. Joyce McQuire Pavao, one of the most prominent adoption therapists
in the country. She's the founder and CEO of Center for Family Connections
in Cambridge. Joyce is adamantly opposed to SH,. and has an essay on them
in the Center's latest newsletter, Kinnections (January-July 2004). I'm
sure she'd be glad to send you a copy. Unfortunately, the newsletter isn't
online. (I looked yesterday.)

Marley Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040215165112.13477.00001926@mb-m24.aol.com... <<<Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your version
of SH propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring? Jack>>>> We are the Fathered Rights advocates.

How so?

In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father.

Okay. Once a child is dumped at one of your vaunted SH locations how is the
father informed that his offspring is there?


Then your rights are matched by your responsibilities.

How can one live up to his responsibilities if said responsibilitiy is kept
a state sanctioned secret? Do tell.

So Blah, blah, blah..

Indeed. Get back when you actually have an answer. Or, is it your position
that fathers are unnneccesary? Wonder how ol' Mike and the kids feel about
dat.

Jack

>Subject: Re: MA - Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandonedinfantsFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 2/15/04 10:10 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <shYXb.36706$%5.9439@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040215165112.13477.00001926@mb-m24.aol.com... <<<Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your versionof SH propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring? Jack>>>> We are the Fathered Rights advocates.How so? In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father.Okay. Once a child is dumped at one of your vaunted SH locations how is thefather informed that his offspring is there? Then your rights are matched by your responsibilities.How can one live up to his responsibilities if said responsibilitiy is kepta state sanctioned secret? Do tell. So Blah, blah, blah..Indeed. Get back when you actually have an answer. Or, is it your positionthat fathers are unnneccesary? Wonder how ol' Mike and the kids feel aboutdat.Jack

You're assuming Mike fathered them. 'Nuff said.


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

<<You're assuming Mike fathered them. 'Nuff said.>>

Through thick and thin Mike's been there for all of his kids, from the day the
stick turned blue to this very moment. That's what makes a father, and that's
what responsibility is all about.
Jean

DSAngelMom wrote:
<<You're assuming Mike fathered them. 'Nuff said.>> Through thick and thin Mike's been there for all of his kids, from the day the stick turned blue to this very moment. That's what makes a father, and that's what responsibility is all about. Jean

If you never told him the bunny died, and you dumped the kid anonymously, then
Mike's responsibility would be moot.

Ron

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040216002208.11385.00002050@mb-m05.aol.com...Subject: Re: MA - Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandonedinfantsFrom: "Jack Bernhard" jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.netDate: 2/15/04 10:10 PM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <shYXb.36706$%5.9439@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20040215165112.13477.00001926@mb-m24.aol.com... <<<Blah, blah, blah. You still haven't responded. How does your
versionof SH propose to protect the father's rights to his own offspring? Jack>>>> We are the Fathered Rights advocates.> In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father.


OK, here is a hypothetical question, Jean. Since I don't know the
applicable Mass. law, this is more of a generic question, but nonetheless, a
viable scenario.
What if a man gets his girlfriend pregnant and, without telling him, she
goes to Massachusetts right before the birth. Right after the birth, she
dumps the child anonymously at a SH. He manages to find mom's location,
sends child support to her, and files the proper paternity acknowledgments,
etc., that preserve his parental rights in Massachusetts. But mom won't tell
him what she did with the child Neither will anybody else. He does not
know whether the child is alive or, if alive, was sent to an adoption
agency, to relatives, strangers, or given to a safe haven. He cannot assume
any one of these possibilities over the other. So he hires an attorney to
get the court to order mom to reveal what she did with the child (assuming
this is the proper remedy in Mass). But, asserting her right to anonymity,
mom refuses to tell him and goes to jail for contempt. From jail, mom hires
an attorney who files a habeus corpus petition demanding mom be released
because the Massachusetts law assures her anonymity and the right to
withhold information. The father, figures out then that the child must have
been sent to a safe haven and spends more money--if he has it--for DNA
testing. His DNA is compared to every baby that has been deserted in a Mass
SH during the last month. A match is made and he gets custody of the child.
He immediately files an action with the court to get child support from
mom, and insists that any visitation mom gets is supervised until the child
is three years old, if not older.

Is this seriously the way we assure fathers their rights, mothers there
emotional well-being, and babies their lives? Even if the baby survived only
because of the SH option, doesn't this scenario ultimately ruin the public's
trust in the fundamental tenets behind the SH bill (anonymity, privacy,
etc?)



Marley

In article <20040216125526.25881.00001592@mb-m23.aol.com>, dsangelmom@aol.com
(DSAngelMom) writes:
<<You're assuming Mike fathered them. 'Nuff said.>>Through thick and thin Mike's been there for all of his kids, from the daythestick turned blue to this very moment. That's what makes a father, and that'swhat responsibility is all about.Jean

Note: She didn't say he fathered them....just that he was there for them and
that that was what makes a father.

KL

Do you honestly expect to use such a very far off the fringe scenario such as
this in order to overturn 45 Baby Safe Haven laws?
First of all if the father is paying child support it is ordered by the court,
and paid through them, or the IRS.
You miss a very important point, the father would be grateful that his baby is
alive first due to the Baby Safe Haven law in the state where he/she was safely
surrendered. Instead of leaving the baby outside of the Museum of Fine Arts in
Boston, such as the baby found in the bushes on a cold day 6 years ago by a
guard who saw the overwhelmed Mom from out of state leave him there. Luckily
that baby was found alive. And how about the 6 other newborns who have died
here in MA since May of 2000? Start telling me some far fetched stories of how
the father would be somehow having his rights taken away by MA now passing our
law?
Most women who find themselves in a crisis such as these due to the
irresponsibility of the father leaving them or setting up the crisis, such as
bailing out when the father learns of the pregnancy.
Good try, and good luck overturning 45 Baby Safe Haven laws, covering 97% of
the US population.
Jean


<<<OK, here is a hypothetical question, Jean. Since I don't know the
applicable Mass. law, this is more of a generic question, but nonetheless, a
viable scenario.
What if a man gets his girlfriend pregnant and, without telling him, she
goes to Massachusetts right before the birth. Right after the birth, she
dumps the child anonymously at a SH. He manages to find mom's location,
sends child support to her, and files the proper paternity acknowledgments,
etc., that preserve his parental rights in Massachusetts. But mom won't tell
him what she did with the child Neither will anybody else. He does not
know whether the child is alive or, if alive, was sent to an adoption
agency, to relatives, strangers, or given to a safe haven. He cannot assume
any one of these possibilities over the other. So he hires an attorney to
get the court to order mom to reveal what she did with the child (assuming
this is the proper remedy in Mass). But, asserting her right to anonymity,
mom refuses to tell him and goes to jail for contempt. From jail, mom hires
an attorney who files a habeus corpus petition demanding mom be released
because the Massachusetts law assures her anonymity and the right to
withhold information. The father, figures out then that the child must have
been sent to a safe haven and spends more money--if he has it--for DNA
testing. His DNA is compared to every baby that has been deserted in a Mass
SH during the last month. A match is made and he gets custody of the child.
He immediately files an action with the court to get child support from
mom, and insists that any visitation mom gets is supervised until the child
is three years old, if not older.

Is this seriously the way we assure fathers their rights, mothers there
emotional well-being, and babies their lives? Even if the baby survived only
because of the SH option, doesn't this scenario ultimately ruin the public's
trust in the fundamental tenets behind the SH bill (anonymity, privacy,
etc?)



Marley>>>

"Jack Bernhard" <jcbernhard@deletethisprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bjBYb.23167$7U2.8326@newssvr16.news.prodigy.c om... "DSAngelMom" <dsangelmom@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040217081353.13694.00001493@mb-m27.aol.com... Do you honestly expect to use such a very far off the fringe scenario
such as this in order to overturn 45 Baby Safe Haven laws? Nope. Just to make folks look before they leap. The lawsuits themselves will take care of the established legislation.

Too bad the Ms can't be added as defendants in the suits.

Kathy 1

>We are the Fathered Rights advocates.In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father.

So any father whose child has died is not a father?

scom2@aol.com (SCOM2) wrote in message news:<20040219021110.29177.00000881@mb-m15.aol.com>...We are the Fathered Rights advocates.In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father. So any father whose child has died is not a father?

--------------------------------
What puzzles me is why, if saving only one justifies SHs, there is a
deadline (e.g. 72 hrs) for deserting the child legally? What if a
parent felt compelled to kill their six month old, or one year old, or
even their five year old? Isn't any person unable to care for
themselves better off being dumped anonymously at a police station
rather than being killed? Maybe we should let people drop their
alzheimer-afflicted grandparents off at the police station anonymously
so we don't have to bear the embarrassment and cost of nursing homes,
and because no other relative will help. After all, we don't want the
relative to have to kill the old bat.

And how old is an anonymous newborn anyway? Do children have
tree-rings somewhere that can be counted to tell us how many hours old
they are? Will Safe Haven intakers have some special ability to
discern 73 hour old babies from 71 hr old babies simply by eyeballing
them? Or even 90 hour old babies from 72 hour old babies? Will we
have cases where an SH administrator tells a mother who offers no
information whatsoever: "I'm sorry, but I can tell that your child is
77 hours old. You cannot relinquish the child legally to us." Does
one let the parent walk away with the child then? Does one call the
police and let four hours mean the difference between anonymity and
prosecution/shame?

This simply proves that SH is feel-good legislation, by exposing the
main earmark of such: That its necessary, strict, no-exception public
policy requirement is completely unenforceable except in the most
obvious of circumstances.

"Erik L. Smith" <edenstore@msn.com> wrote in message
news:31c99d34.0402190453.2c6efdb3@posting.google.c om... scom2@aol.com (SCOM2) wrote in message
news:<20040219021110.29177.00000881@mb-m15.aol.com>...We are the Fathered Rights advocates.In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father. So any father whose child has died is not a father? -------------------------------- What puzzles me is why, if saving only one justifies SHs, there is a deadline (e.g. 72 hrs) for deserting the child legally? What if a parent felt compelled to kill their six month old, or one year old, or even their five year old? Isn't any person unable to care for themselves better off being dumped anonymously at a police station rather than being killed? Maybe we should let people drop their alzheimer-afflicted grandparents off at the police station anonymously so we don't have to bear the embarrassment and cost of nursing homes, and because no other relative will help. After all, we don't want the relative to have to kill the old bat.
And how old is an anonymous newborn anyway? Do children have tree-rings somewhere that can be counted to tell us how many hours old they are? Will Safe Haven intakers have some special ability to discern 73 hour old babies from 71 hr old babies simply by eyeballing them? Or even 90 hour old babies from 72 hour old babies? Will we have cases where an SH administrator tells a mother who offers no information whatsoever: "I'm sorry, but I can tell that your child is 77 hours old. You cannot relinquish the child legally to us." Does one let the parent walk away with the child then? Does one call the police and let four hours mean the difference between anonymity and prosecution/shame? This simply proves that SH is feel-good legislation, by exposing the main earmark of such: That its necessary, strict, no-exception public policy requirement is completely unenforceable except in the most obvious of circumstances.

Dr.Pierce once argued here that newborns were just the beginning and that
he eventually would like to see the age scooted up into at least
toddlerhood. After we break that barrier, the sky's the limit. Why, I
could even drop you off at a police station. Or even the Morriseys.

Marley

SCOM2 wrote:
We are the Fathered Rights advocates.In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father. So any father whose child has died is not a father?

I may be wrong, but this doesn't seem to the natural conclusion
one would reach from the two quoted sentences above [ >> ] --
If a child is dead it must have been alive for some period of time.

pb...

scom2@aol.com (SCOM2) wrote in message news:<20040219021110.29177.00000881@mb-m15.aol.com>...We are the Fathered Rights advocates.In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father. So any father whose child has died is not a father?


Not currently, I'd say, unless he has other children. He was a father.

Rupa

<<> >We are the Fathered Rights advocates.In order to be a father you need to have a LIVE child to father. So any father whose child has died is not a father?


Not currently, I'd say, unless he has other children. He was a father.

Rupa<<<<

Sorry Rupa,
You're half right. If the baby is abandoned for dead then the father is a
father, was a father, but more importantly he cannot actively take on the role
of a father as he has to have a live child to father.
Case closed.
Jean