[Happy2Bhere]

HI!
We just had a news story last night about a 19 year old mom that dropped her newborn baby off at the hospital- just hours old, with the umbilical cord still attached. Luckily, the safe haven law (is that what its called) is in place, and a mom can drop off her child with charges during the first two weeks of life.
I was wondering- why don't they extend that age? I mean, all the parents who think they're "stuck" or abuse their kids? Why couldn't that law apply to ANY age?
I think its GREAT to have the law in place, but the first two weeks- that isn't enough time. We had our daughter placed with us at 7 1/2 weeks- the mom couldn't parent & was frustrated. What if she didn't think of adoption- and didn't want charges or problems- and abused the baby or worst?

[Sheba]

I agree that there shoudl be laws where parents can drop of children they cannot keep for what ever reason. I truly believe this would save many of the childrens lives! So many are abused because they were not wanted or even killed. This saddens me greatly. So many families would take them in in a second. In our area a baby boy was found in a bathroom in a remote park barely a day old. I do not believe the parents were ever found but the baby boy survived and was doing well. I am assuming he has since been put up for adoption! I give that Mom you mentioned credit to know her limits and leave. If she does not have to leave a name or any information, then there is no chance for her changing her mind later and taking the baby back from a future family.

Just my two cents.

[amyfk]

You pose a very good and interesting question. And like the poster before me I do see merit in having safe haven laws for children older than a few weeks. (unfortunately I dont have any answers).
Amy K, NJ

[Suziebearhugs]

Any parent can bring their child to a DHS office and voluntarily put there child in fostercare to keep them from harm(at any age).

The only difference is there will be a case opened. Likely under "abandonment" but since it was done in a safe way the parent wouldn't face criminal charges or jail time.

The big "pro" to this would be the parent would have an opportunity to have counceling and other services offered to them. They'd also have a chance to get their child back if they decided they did want to parent.

If they decided not to parent they could voluntarily sign over there rights and no charges would be on their record.


(this happens many times with birthparents who did have their children taken away for neglect or abuse...etc...they usually don't serve jail time and in a last ditch effort before they loose everything anyways they decide to volutarily relinquish their rights rather than wait for the state to terminate them, therby keeping those charges off their record.)

[xxsurroundedbyxy]

The age under the Safe Haven Law varies per state (and not all states have this law). Some states, like Florida, are very limited in age (FL is 3 days old) where others are more lenient (my state is up to a month old--New Mexico is up to 90 days old----and Missiouri and North Dakota are up to one year old!). You would need to go to State Statutes and click on your state and Safe Haven Law to find your state's statute.

[jasonsmom]

I never realized the time allowed was so limited. I just looked up MA and it's 7 days. I think the 3 days FL allows is ridiculous - I was still in the hospital after having DS then.

There was a story a while ago about Japan starting a safe haven program. Someone attempted to drop off a toddler which caused quite a stir. I'm not sure what happened with the program after that.

Paula

[Lumpkin]

We heard the news of that baby as well. They say it'll be in foster care for another 6 months before it can be adopted. That seems sorta silly if the mom dropped it off. If nothing else, it's a sure case for abandonment. Our kids were TPR'd way short of 6 months due to clear abandonment.

[Suziebearhugs]

That makes sense.

In most states (if not all) a child must be fostered by their adoptive family for 6 months before an adoption can take place.

So if the child was placed with the family at birth they would remain in the fostercare system for 6 months before the adoption could be finalized.

[Lissa]

Safe haven laws are basically to halt infanticide. A young woman gives birth, panics then kills her child because the fathr has run off and her parents don't know about her pregnancy and wouldn't approve. (Not the only type of situation. but an example of one of hundreds of reasons why a woman might become desperate enough to kill her own newborn child.) Instead of killing her child she knows she can fall back on the safe haven law. She can also possibly regain her child. Another good thing in case she was suffering from depression, coersion etc. and her circumstances change. Seemingly someone with an older child who finds they are no longer able to parent will make proper arrangements themselves. They shouldn't need a safe haven law. Abandonment is horrible and is something no child should ever have to go through. It's something we all here on the China forum need to be extremely sensitive about as our children are almost all going to be dealing with having been left. We have the ability to tell our children there was no other option...but here in the US that just isn't the case, so extending safe haven laws seems almost cruel.

[Lorraine123]

Safe Haven laws in our country will not prevent most abuse and neglect of older children, IMO. Most of the parents who abuse their children do so because of some type of mental illness. They usually don't even see it as abuse. Therefore, they would not relinquish their child voluntarily until DHS intervenes.

[thanksgivingmom]

Originally Posted by Lumpkin

We heard the news of that baby as well. They say it'll be in foster care for another 6 months before it can be adopted. That seems sorta silly if the mom dropped it off. If nothing else, it's a sure case for abandonment. Our kids were TPR'd way short of 6 months due to clear abandonment.

Safe Haven is by law, not abandonment. That's part of the whole point of Safe Haven.

I also don't know all the rules in all the states but in California a Mom has ten days to return and change her mind before essentially an anonymous TPR is automatically done. Also, children are not always put into foster care through Safe Haven. Some are immediately placed for adoption.

[TxMom65]

Originally Posted by Happy2Bhere

HI!
We just had a news story last night about a 19 year old mom that dropped her newborn baby off at the hospital- just hours old, with the umbilical cord still attached. Luckily, the safe haven law (is that what its called) is in place, and a mom can drop off her child with charges during the first two weeks of life.
I was wondering- why don't they extend that age? I mean, all the parents who think they're "stuck" or abuse their kids? Why couldn't that law apply to ANY age?
I think its GREAT to have the law in place, but the first two weeks- that isn't enough time. We had our daughter placed with us at 7 1/2 weeks- the mom couldn't parent & was frustrated. What if she didn't think of adoption- and didn't want charges or problems- and abused the baby or worst?

My daughter was abused and neglected by her birthfamily, as were her siblings. The family NEVER considered adoption as an option. Never. Any person I've seen consider adoption and chose to parent were good parents, never abusive. On the other hand, those who were lackluster to begin with and never ever would consider adoption....I hate to see them with their kids.

[Happy2Bhere]

Thanks for the replies everyone.
I just get so happy when I hear about a Safe Haven baby- because you think of the bad that COULD have happen. Yet, I get so frustrated when I hear of newborns being killed or abandoned, left to die- because of these scared younger moms- probably who have never heard of safe haven.
Then, I get upset at parents who abuse or neglect their toddlers or older children, or who feel "stuck" without an option.
Kids never ask to be born. They are the most precious thing in this world- no child should ever be neglected or abused- there are so many other options for these parents.

[dpen6]

Originally Posted by Lissa

Safe haven laws are basically to halt infanticide. A young woman gives birth, panics then kills her child because the fathr has run off and her parents don't know about her pregnancy and wouldn't approve. (Not the only type of situation. but an example of one of hundreds of reasons why a woman might become desperate enough to kill her own newborn child.) Instead of killing her child she knows she can fall back on the safe haven law. She can also possibly regain her child. Another good thing in case she was suffering from depression, coersion etc. and her circumstances change. Seemingly someone with an older child who finds they are no longer able to parent will make proper arrangements themselves. They shouldn't need a safe haven law. Abandonment is horrible and is something no child should ever have to go through. It's something we all here on the China forum need to be extremely sensitive about as our children are almost all going to be dealing with having been left. We have the ability to tell our children there was no other option...but here in the US that just isn't the case, so extending safe haven laws seems almost cruel.

I agree...I am really afraid that the safe haven laws only make abandonment socially acceptable. The is a person at the end of the road and that persons(baby) deserves respect in that they have the ability to know their biology as an adult.
If Safe haven laws are used as intended, when a new mother gives birth and is going to abandone anyway, like at the side of the road, or is a means to prevent killing there baby , I am all for it. I am not for it being used as a "good will container for babies".the baby and the mother has to much to lose.