----- Original Message -----
From: "DSAngelMom" <dsangelmom@aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.adoption
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: MA - Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandoned
infants

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

If the two of you knew anything about how adoptions play out , you would
know that this scenario is not "fringe."

The scenario I presented is seen all of the time in conventional contested
adoption situations. Many times a dad has taken responsibility but mom
still places the child for adoption without wanting dad to know. What does
SH do to make it so much less likely to happen? Financial support from dad
during a pregnancy, may, and most often does, go through personal payment
from dad to mom before a legal dad-child relationship is established by the
court. In judging dad's responsibility, courts routinely assess how much
support he paid or furnished to mom directly before the birth, for example,
paying directly for pregnancy care and delivery bills. This is not at all
far-fetched.

I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive. The
question is, though the child is alive, how does the SH prevent this
scenario, or a more common off-shoot of this scenario, and its detrimental,
if not fatal, effect on SH's where the mother, as happens in adoptions
fairly often, wants to leave dad out of the picture but does not succeed?
If, as Mike affirmatively stated in the radio debate, the SH bill purports
to give dad his day in court, what will you say to moms when, by giving dad
receiving notice, mom is put in an adverse court situation where she is a
witness and potentially a party to the proceeding. What do you tell mom
when she says you promised anonymity and implied that you would never tell
dad, but now you obviously have?

Marley <<<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>>>

<<<<I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive.>>>

And Dad is then grateful for his opportunity to have his day in court, and not
spending that same day instead visiting the grave of his child, that is if
there is a grave to visit as he could be visiting a landfill where his child
would have wound up.
So you say that your organization is still trying to overturn 45 Baby Safe
Haven laws that cover 97% of the US population. And we know that Baby Safe
Haven laws are the best practice of the child welfare administrations of those
45 states that cover 97% of the US population. A few far off the fringe
potential lawsuits will not deter these proven best practices, that Baby Safe
Haven laws are, are passed by 90+% of legislative majorities, and promulgated
by 45 administrations.
Don't forget fathers' rights are second to fathers' responsibility. If he's
going to spread his seeds, he has to care for where his flowers may be
blooming. Baby Safe Haven laws are the proven best child welfare practice to
assure that these flowers will be given the chance blossom.
Jean

"BabySafeHaven" <babysafehaven@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040218105600.11652.00002070@mb-m12.aol.com... <<<<I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive.>>> And Dad is then grateful for his opportunity to have his day in court, and
not spending that same day instead visiting the grave of his child, that is if there is a grave to visit as he could be visiting a landfill where his
child would have wound up.

But he has to know about the child first. The issue I am trying to get at
is, under the SH law, the most common way for a dad to find out about the
"saved" child, and assert his parental rights, will be to force mom to give
up information. In conventional adoptions, dad is given notice more
directly. Thus, "forcing" mom directly is not absolutely necessary. But in
SH's, it will be the only way because mom was legally promised anonymity and
SH personnel are legally required to withhold all information save a court
order. Stop dismissing the situation on arguments of "rarity" and "why mom
avoided dad in the first place" and start answering the question which will,
sooner or later, come up. How will SHs avoid the black eye?

Under your SH set-up dad probably won't find out about the child, and if he
does find out--that is, if dad's got the money to mount a search--he blows
her cover, and the state is open to a messy lawsuit. Under, your home-rule
deal, small municipalities might even be financially liable. BTW, I notice
that Police Chief Arruda is very concerned about liability and won't support
home-rule, though he does support the state bill. Arruda is quoted in the
Feb. 17, 2004 edition of The Fall River Herald-News: "The community is in
financial crisis . I don't think I should be the recipient of an abandoned
baby. I don't have the facility or resources."
http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10977900&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=6

Beverly Hills adoption attorney David Keene Leavitt who spirited a
pregnant woman out of the country to "keep her little secret" can tell you
all about othat. Dad and his family fought back. The West Virginia Supreme
Court was not amused to the tune of about $1M in fines for the adoption
lawyer to the stars. I don't think it's far-fetched to see this happening
under SH.


So you say that your organization is still trying to overturn 45 Baby Safe Haven laws that cover 97% of the US population.

Where did I say that? I haven't as far as I know. Once states learn that
rates of dangerous abandonment stay the same or increase under SH, and that
the laws are used as drive-by relinquishments, at great cost to the
taxpayers, we won't have to do much of anything. Babyklappe--Nein Danke!


And we know that Baby Safe Haven laws are the best practice of the child welfare administrations of
those 45 states that cover 97% of the US population.

Then why hasn't CWLA endorsed it? Why hasn't Holt International and
Spence-Chapin endorsed it? Why hasn't any adoption reform organization in
the entire country endorsed it? Whyhaven't any adoption ethicists endorsed
it? I keep asking this question, and I don't get a reply.

A few far off the fringe potential lawsuits will not deter these proven best practices, that Baby
Safe Haven laws are, are passed by 90+% of legislative majorities, and
promulgated by 45 administrations.

Bulldozed through, a way for politicians to feel good about themselves with
little thought to the chaos and misery they've' created. But then, what can
we expect from the people who believe that adopted adults hold inferior
rights. Your friends in NH are now arguing that adult adoptees in that state
cannot be permitted to receive their own birth records because to do so
would vacate *your* SH law. Care to share an opinion on that? The true
agenda, which we saw from Day 1, is now coming to light for the rest of the
country to see. Baby Moses is nothing but anti-adoptee and anti-adoption.
Don't forget fathers' rights are second to fathers' responsibility. If
he's going to spread his seeds, he has to care for where his flowers may be blooming. Baby Safe Haven laws are the proven best child welfare practice
to assure that these flowers will be given the chance blossom.

Just how is dad supposed to take responsibility if he doesn't know about the
baby or that it's been Baby Mosed. Of course, the supposed target of your
scheme could care less about those niceties and will continue dumping and
killing.. Instead we're seeing the *real target* --those in multi-vectored
pregnancy-- using the laws as Dr. Pierce's non-bureaucratic placement," and
as threats against dads who do not want their child placed for adopted. Nice
work. Undocumented babies used to keep the records of adults sealed.

What's next? Baby X? I'm sure your little Chicago group has that all
planned out. The pilot is already out there.

Marley


Jean

BabySafeHaven wrote:
<<<<I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive.>>> And Dad is then grateful for his opportunity to have his day in court, and not spending that same day instead visiting the grave of his child, that is if there is a grave to visit as he could be visiting a landfill where his child would have wound up. So you say that your organization is still trying to overturn 45 Baby Safe Haven laws that cover 97% of the US population. And we know that Baby Safe Haven laws are the best practice of the child welfare administrations of those 45 states that cover 97% of the US population.

Says who? Do you even *know* what best practice means (in other words are you
lying intentionally), or don't you (which means you're lying out of ignorance)?
In other words, are you dishonest or stupid?

A few far off the fringe potential lawsuits will not deter these proven best practices, that Baby Safe Haven laws are, are passed by 90+% of legislative majorities, and promulgated by 45 administrations.

That isn't best practice, that's "monkey see/monkey do". That's copy-catting.
Best practice assumes peer review and program assessment, there has been nothing
like that with baby dumps, they are an enormous social experiment launched by a
hypothesis based on an assumption with no quantitative foundation. Thusfar they
have not decreased the number of infant abandonments, their number one goal, and
there is no substantial evidence that they will ever do what they intend.
Don't forget fathers' rights are second to fathers' responsibility. If he's going to spread his seeds, he has to care for where his flowers may be blooming. Baby Safe Haven laws are the proven best child welfare practice to assure that these flowers will be given the chance blossom.

Please quit using language that you are dishonestly or ignorantly expropriating
for political points, pimpstress.

Ron
Jean

Marley Greiner wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "DSAngelMom" <dsangelmom@aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.adoption Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:13 AM Subject: Re: MA - Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandoned infants 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 If the two of you knew anything about how adoptions play out , you would know that this scenario is not "fringe." The scenario I presented is seen all of the time in conventional contested adoption situations. Many times a dad has taken responsibility but mom still places the child for adoption without wanting dad to know. What does SH do to make it so much less likely to happen? Financial support from dad during a pregnancy, may, and most often does, go through personal payment from dad to mom before a legal dad-child relationship is established by the court. In judging dad's responsibility, courts routinely assess how much support he paid or furnished to mom directly before the birth, for example, paying directly for pregnancy care and delivery bills. This is not at all far-fetched. I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive. The question is, though the child is alive, how does the SH prevent this scenario, or a more common off-shoot of this scenario, and its detrimental, if not fatal, effect on SH's where the mother, as happens in adoptions fairly often, wants to leave dad out of the picture but does not succeed? If, as Mike affirmatively stated in the radio debate, the SH bill purports to give dad his day in court, what will you say to moms when, by giving dad receiving notice, mom is put in an adverse court situation where she is a witness and potentially a party to the proceeding. What do you tell mom when she says you promised anonymity and implied that you would never tell dad, but now you obviously have? Marley

Please Marley, don't confuse these doofuses with facts. Safe Havens are the
best practice for infant abandonment, fringe issues like blowing anonymity
promised solemnly before some town council in suburban Boston must not
interfere with the M's mission to do God's work!

I am frankly amazed that no one with a BA in child welfare law hasn't stood up
to these jaspers in public. They are clowns decked out in funeral director
drag.

Sheesh.

Ron
<<<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>>>

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40349370.E7A0AD17@earthlink.net... BabySafeHaven wrote: <<<<I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive.>>> And Dad is then grateful for his opportunity to have his day in court,
and not spending that same day instead visiting the grave of his child, that is
if there is a grave to visit as he could be visiting a landfill where his
child would have wound up. So you say that your organization is still trying to overturn 45 Baby
Safe Haven laws that cover 97% of the US population. And we know that Baby
Safe Haven laws are the best practice of the child welfare administrations of
those 45 states that cover 97% of the US population. Says who? Do you even *know* what best practice means (in other words are
you lying intentionally), or don't you (which means you're lying out of
ignorance)? In other words, are you dishonest or stupid? A few far off the fringe potential lawsuits will not deter these proven best practices, that Baby
Safe Haven laws are, are passed by 90+% of legislative majorities, and
promulgated by 45 administrations. That isn't best practice, that's "monkey see/monkey do". That's
copy-catting. Best practice assumes peer review and program assessment, there has been
nothing like that with baby dumps, they are an enormous social experiment launched
by a hypothesis based on an assumption with no quantitative foundation. Thusfar
they have not decreased the number of infant abandonments, their number one
goal, and there is no substantial evidence that they will ever do what they intend. Don't forget fathers' rights are second to fathers' responsibility. If
he's going to spread his seeds, he has to care for where his flowers may be blooming. Baby Safe Haven laws are the proven best child welfare
practice to assure that these flowers will be given the chance blossom. Please quit using language that you are dishonestly or ignorantly
expropriating for political points, pimpstress. Ron Jean

This is what happens when obsessive amateurs get involved in policy. Today
baby dumps; tomorrow nuclear proliferation policy.

Marley

"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4034949A.CC1A2B25@earthlink.net... Marley Greiner wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "DSAngelMom" <dsangelmom@aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.adoption Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:13 AM Subject: Re: MA - Activists seek law to provide safety net for abandoned infants 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 If the two of you knew anything about how adoptions play out , you would know that this scenario is not "fringe." The scenario I presented is seen all of the time in conventional
contested adoption situations. Many times a dad has taken responsibility but mom still places the child for adoption without wanting dad to know. What
does SH do to make it so much less likely to happen? Financial support from
dad during a pregnancy, may, and most often does, go through personal
payment from dad to mom before a legal dad-child relationship is established by
the court. In judging dad's responsibility, courts routinely assess how
much support he paid or furnished to mom directly before the birth, for
example, paying directly for pregnancy care and delivery bills. This is not at
all far-fetched. I never said that dad should not be grateful his child is alive. The question is, though the child is alive, how does the SH prevent this scenario, or a more common off-shoot of this scenario, and its
detrimental, if not fatal, effect on SH's where the mother, as happens in adoptions fairly often, wants to leave dad out of the picture but does not
succeed? If, as Mike affirmatively stated in the radio debate, the SH bill
purports to give dad his day in court, what will you say to moms when, by giving
dad receiving notice, mom is put in an adverse court situation where she is
a witness and potentially a party to the proceeding. What do you tell mom when she says you promised anonymity and implied that you would never
tell dad, but now you obviously have? Marley Please Marley, don't confuse these doofuses with facts. Safe Havens are
the best practice for infant abandonment, fringe issues like blowing anonymity promised solemnly before some town council in suburban Boston must not interfere with the M's mission to do God's work!

Just wait for Swansea or Belmont to get sued. Let's see how popular they'll
be then. I am frankly amazed that no one with a BA in child welfare law hasn't
stood up to these jaspers in public. They are clowns decked out in funeral director drag.

I'm sure they have, but you know how liberals behave.

Marley Sheesh. Ron <<<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>>>