SAFE HAVENS: TIME TO AUDIT THE BOOKS

Since the codification of legalized baby dumping in the US, there has been growing evidence that cases once considered "boarder baby" abandonments are being folded into "safe haven cases." That is, babies born to (usually) identified mothers in hospitals and left by the parent(s) beyond the time of discharge (the official definition [pdf] of boarder babies) are being counted as "safe haven" saved-from-the-dumpster. Numerous news reports tell us of mothers walking out of hospitals after giving birth using the "safe haven option." One of the latest and most blatant reports was the DIY advice published in the November 11, 2008 Newark Star Ledger, How you can put your baby in a loving home. One of the most disturbing appeared in the Abeline Reporter News, June 20, 2008, Baby Moses Law allows for "safe abandonment about a "safe haven" in Richardson, Texas, where

a woman had given birth there, then said she didn't want the child, Summey said. "The hospital didn't know what to do. It was a Baby Moses abandonment, but the mom needed medical attention. CPS foots the bill for (the baby's) medical care, but they didn't know if the mother was covered as well."

The Michigan Department of Human Services Safe Delivery Fact Sheet (statistics) [pdf] tells us that from 2001 to April 2009, 73 "safe haven" events have occurred; 62 of those babies were born in hospitals. Each is documented online with the county of surrender and the age of the mother; in a few cases the father was at the birth and is listed as "surrendering" with the mother.

A March 20, 2007 press release from the Kentucky Cabinet for Child and Human Services says that 14 out of 15 "safe havened" babies were born in hospitals, something that Lisa Durbin, manager of the Child Safety Branch calls "unexpected." A press release dated February 13, 2008 indicates another 5 were "safe havened" but does not mention how many were born in hospitals. No numbers are available online since then.

Nick Silverio founder and director of Florida's non-profit, A Safe Haven for Newborns, frequently issues press releases like the following, dated January 14, 2009 (not online; copy if my possession):

A mother gave birth to a healthy little girl at a hospital and wished to have the baby placed in the "Safe Haven" program. We spoke to the hospital - mother and the baby were doing very well. The mother had previously called our helpline - We provided her with information and clarification regarding this "Safe Haven" program, as she requested,. The baby's name is: Caitiln.

When I appeared on the John Walsh Show in April 2003, one of the guests, pre-taped and shown in shadow, talked about how Tim Jaccard and New York's AMT Children of Hope had put her up in a hotel for 7 months while she waited out her pregnancy and "safe havening."

Occasionally, news reports tell us that hospital staff have encouraged women unsure of their parenting interest or skills to "safe haven" rather than investigate other solutions (temporary foster care, state and private assistance, adoption) since dumping is "easier."

In May 2008, I testified against SB 304, a bill before the Ohio Senate Health, Human Services, and Aging Committee to amend Ohio's Abandoned Child Act to permit infants up to 30 days of age to be dropped off at state-approved dump centers. I testified in part:

What, in fact, constitutes a legal “safe haven—at least the way it way intended to be used?” I ask this, since it appears that safe haven is routinely abused. As we all feared, instead of an “emergency solution” for panicked parents, it’s turned into a fast-track “adoption plan” for those who find counseling, paper signing and informed adoption surrender tiresome. Of the cases I’ve been able to research though public records and other sources, a good number of Ohio safe havened newborns appear to be born in hospitals to identified women, not women in hiding. Dean Sparks, director of Lucas County Children’s Services, was quoted in the December 1, 2005 Toledo Blade (paid archives) that all three of his county’s safe havened babies were born in hospitals. “The cases I’m familiar with are cases where the mother’s gone to the hospital, she’s delivered the baby in the hospital, and she said, ‘By the way, I don’t want this baby. I want to claim my Safe Haven privilege.”

In a later entry here, I elaborated (again in part):

Dean Sparks, executive director of Lucas County Childrens Services told WTVG-TV, Toledo that he wasn't sure if expanding the timeframe to 30 days was necessary. He quickly extracted his foot from his mouth, though, adding, "We certainly are supportive of any legislation that is going to keep babies safe and keep babies alive." Sparks said he didn't know "off the top of his head" how many babies had been dumped in Toledo-area hospitals, saying it was a couple year. According to my records--taken from statements made earlier by Sparks and quasi-official state records-- there have been at least three boarder baby cases, re-invented as "safe havens." That is, babies born in hospitals to identified mothers, and left there beyond the time of release. In the May 3, 2003 Toledo Blade Sparks announced that a month earlier a baby had been delivered at an unnamed Toledo hospital and left there by the mother "after having referred to the Safe Haven law." A second baby was left after a hospital birth in July 2003 (no details), and another one (no details) between July 1. 2003-June 30, 2004. ODJFS reports that three (no details) were left in Lucas County in FY 2007 (ended June 30, 2007), but doesn't specify if they were delivered on the premises or left after the fact. (Non-linked sources: Toledo Blade, May 3, 2003, July 24, 2003; December 1, 2005; paid archives in my possession) In the December 1, 2005 end-of-the year wrap-up Sparks described the "safe haven" process: The cases that I'm familiar with are cases where the mother's gone to the hospital, she's delivered the baby in the hospital and she's said, "By the way, I don't want this baby. I want to claim my Safe Haven privilege."

It is difficult to believe that Ohio, which has no kitchen table pushers and virtually no "safe haven" advertising outside of posters, brochures, and an Ohio Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS) webpage, could have gathered in more than 63 drive-by newborns [pdf] since the law went into effect April 2000. My ongoing research into Ohio's "safe haven use, through public records requests, legal records, personal narratives, and news reports, suggests that an ample number of babies marked for the dump were born in hospitals and left there after the time of medical release.

I am bringing this up again because earlier this month Columbus had another "safe haven" miracle: an infant transformed by the government from boarder baby to safe haven baby. The baby was dumped the day after Franklin County Children Services held a press conference (includes video) at a downtown fire station, shilling the HB 304 expansion. The miracle was reported by Rita Price in the August 22, 2009 Columbus Dispatch:

Child-welfare advocates who gathered this week to promote the state's infant-surrender law didn't have to wait long for the process to play out in real life.

A woman turned over her newborn to staff members at Doctors Hospital after giving birth there early yesterday, said Doris Calloway Moore, spokeswoman for Franklin County Children Services.

The baby girl weighed 7 pounds, 10 ounces and appears to be healthy. The agency will place her in foster care for now.

Moore said officials do not know how the mother became aware of the Safe Havens law, which was discussed in news reports and on television Thursday. Supporters have said the 8-year-old law, which recently was revised, needs to be better publicized.

"It may be coincidence, or she may have seen some of the coverage," Moore said. "It's unusual for people to use the words Safe Havens, and she did."

Hospital officials won't comment because they want to guard the woman's privacy. Any discussion could discourage others who want to surrender a child confidentially, spokesman Mark Hopkins said.

and later, the incredible:

Eric Fenner, (right) executive director of Franklin County Children Services, said he thinks Safe Havens laws protect children whose parents already have decided they cannot raise them.

"When a person reaches a point where they are considering abandoning that child, those decisions have been made," he said. "I don't think what you see on television influences that."

Communities should offer safe options to the desperate, Fenner said.

Any guess what Fenner is talking about? Has he never heard of "making an adoption plan" when parents determine they cannot raise a child? Is not legal child surrender covered in the Ohio Revised Code? Are parents who legally surrender a child for adoption prosecuted for doing so? Does he not know that all adoptions, open and closed, are "confidential" and not subject to public perusal? Is he saying that "safe haven" promotion is useless?

In a rare break from the usual ga-ga reaction to baybee saving, Rita Price interviewed me for this article, and some of my comments are included in it.

Like most states, Ohio does not track in any authoritative or professional manner the number of "safe haven" incidents it has experienced nor does it track outcomes, which are treated as state secrets. A few years ago, Franklin County Children's Services admitted that 5 of its then 8 dumped infants had been returned to parents or kin. I have verified that at least one more has returned home, and understand there are more. I believe infants have been returned in other counties as well, and I continue to ferret out that data.

Last month, Tim Jaccard, who in addition to his duties at AMT-Children of Hope is the president of the National Safe Haven Alliance, a loose group of core "safe haven" kitchenettes, claimed that since 1998, 2,832 newborns have been dumped in the spammer. He claims, increased publicity, especially from the Nebraska Fiasco, has made women more aware of their don't-ask-don't-tell abandonment "option" (which I don't believe), but admits the tanked economy also indicates the uptick. Nick Silverio, in the same article, says the number of calls to his Safe Haven for Newborns receives has increased sharply in the last few months. Like Jaccard, he credits "increased publicity" not hospital facilitation of bad practice, severe cuts in social services, and growing female impoverishment for the calls. Does this mean that "safe haven" is now a poverty busting program?

Even the most intrepid researchers (their number is growing), are hampered by state anonymity "protections" and lack of data, and can dig only so far. The state remains silent outside of a few press statements--if that. Court records are sealed. Due to their baby funneling projects, "insiders" such as Silverio and Jaccard, are often privy to "confidential" case information that the general public, watchdogs, and researchers cannot by law access. With no professional status and requirement to source their claims, these dump pimps skew and spout "facts" and figures with no accessible documentation to validate them. wink wink.

How many "safe haven" cases are genuine walk-in anonymous dumps and how many are really boarder baby incidents? How many "safe havenings" are convenience dumps by women who want a quick fix.? How many are about hiding a child from its father? A substantial number of "safe haven" mothers in Ohio and other states are not phantoms. They are described by age, race, ethnicity, family status/circumstance in publicly accessible documents and "safe haven" adopter narratives.

How many cases are adjudicated as "safe haven" surrenders in juvenile courts and how many are not? How many children are retrieved by parents or kin? How many events become normal adoption surrenders after second thoughts or post-dump counseling ?

How many "clients" understand the consequences of their actions or even know what they're doing? Narratives of Los Angeles County dumpers collected by ICAN show parents, often illegal immigrants or unfamiliar with English, or under-educated, afraid of immigration authorities, ignorant or fearful of public assistance, adoption planning, and customary American child welfare practice suggest that they don't. They are disenfranchised and disempowered, fearful and open to manipulation and exploitation by authority figures. (report no longer online that I can find; copy in my possession.)

How many incidents are misunderstandings or mistakes? In my hometown, Canton, Ohio, Tasha Howell attempted to safe haven her 2-month old son at Mercy Medical Center because she believed she was mandated by law to do so since she was broke and had been turned down for free formula by three local agencies. She thought "safe haven" was a temporary custody arrangement, not that she'd be giving her baby up for stranger adoption. For her trouble, Howell was charged with abandonment and her older children taken into state custody even though ODJFS admitted that the children were clean, fed, well cared for with no signs of neglect or abuse. If the baby had been within the prescribed age limit, Howell would have been erased from her son's life and congratulated for not killing him.

How much do "safe havens" cost taxpayers? Unlike propaganda that claims "safe havens" are something for nothing, each case burdens the taxpayer with associated medical care, foster care, and legal costs.

Legalized baby dumping has played out as we expected. Although it has taken on a life of its own, those inside adoption reform know that in the late 1990s anonymous dump policy and legislation was developed behind the closed doors of the National Council for Adoption to combat the nascent adoptee rights movement to restore to bastards the right to their original birth certificates; and thus de-privatize adoption industry machinations. Secondary targets were the growing birthfather rights movement and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that permits tribes, under certain conditions, to claim a child abandoned or to be placed for adoption.

Does any sane person actually believe that nearly 3,000 homicidal women have yielded their natural instincts for a few minutes by slipping into ERs and the back doors of fire stations to save their newborns from their own malevolent parental natures?

"Safe haven" critic Erik L. Smith calls baby dump laws "enact an inch, take a mile legislation" As we predicted 10 years ago, ill-thought out baby snatching laws are now "just another option" for the irresponsible, lazy, shamed, ignorant, uninformed, bullied, and manipulated. Promotion has morphed from the original mission of "saving newborns" from their mythological murdering moms to a remedy for child abuse and neglect, abortion, postpartum depression--and now poverty. With ever-expanding time frames, drop-off stations, and even how-to-abandon-your baby school curriculums (California, Illinois), "safe havens" normalize, secertize, and consumerize child abandonment into a positive thing, not the universaily condemed and despised practice it has always been. The laws subvert best practices in child welfare and adoption, slap the face of every parent took the time and care to try to do the right thing (no matter what the outcome) and continue to strip bastards of their rights.

It's time for states to audit their "safe haven" books. Answer the questions I posed above and more.

LAUGH OF THE DAY: NCFA SIGHTING

from Heidi Saxton,

NCFA has consistently advocated for the needs of all three sides of the adoption triad with a truly pro-life position – I heartily endorse them.

Since when has NCFA advocated for bastards and their creators?

MARY ROBINSON NAMED NEW PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ADOPTION

NCFA continues to change its face to the nicer and kinder.

This morning the National Council for Adoption announced the appointment of Mary Fasenmyer Robinson its new president and CEO. She replaces NCFA VP Chuck Johnson, who has served as acting president since the resignation of Tom Atwood last November.

Robinson, with her background in development, marketing, finances, and philanthropy, (ie, $$$$$$$) appears to be the biggest step yet away from the bastard busting of its pathological founding mission and Piercian brand of realpolitik. Bill Pierce (right), who never met a bastard or parent (first or adoptive), that didn't need a good slap down and smearing, should be spinning in his grave-- if he had one. Bastardette warned Dr. Pierce that calamity would befall NCFA after his passing, and, well...he said that was NCFA's problem, not his.

We personally, miss the cowboy days. A corporate NCFA is not a fun NCFA. Except for its weird association with Texas Christian's Dr. Karyn Purvis, the attachment lady who equates wheeling a kid around the store in a grocery cart with child abandonment, NCFA hasn't been much fun since Bastard Nation shut it down during its In Belly of the Beast rally, (and here ) and Dr. Pierce, regarding obc access, lamented to the Washington City Paper:

They [birthparents]) might have had some sexual activities, might have indulged in some recreational drug use," he says. "Let's assume I used marijuana in the past and had sex and also had anal sex with a woman who may have had anal sex with a guy who is gay. And I also had a bout of depression, and there may be some biochemical or genetic thing. There is zero chance you're going to get a candid background history if they know it will be accessible. So they'll say, 'My health is perfectly good.'"



We seriously doubt that Ms Robinson would be caught making such remark. Who would? After all, it's a rare person who can connect anal sex with adoptee rights. We wonder if anybody has filled Ms Robinson in on her new company's history.

Below is the full text NCFA's press release. We haven't had time yet to check out Robinson, including her view, if any, (we'd love to talk to her) on obc access and what direction NCFA will take, but we will.

For Immediate Release
August 27, 2009

Mary Robinson Named NCFA President and CEO

Alexandria, VA – Mary Fasenmyer Robinson of Bethesda, Maryland has been named president and chief executive officer of the National Council For Adoption (NCFA). The announcement was made today by board chairman Stan Swim, noting Ms. Robinson’s extensive experience in nonprofit development, strategic marketing and software innovation.

“We are extremely delighted and proud to announce Mary Robinson as NCFA's new president and CEO. NCFA was founded on the unwavering belief that all children deserve a loving, permanent family. I am confident that Mary possesses the depth of leadership experience, marketing expertise and passion for adoption, as an adoptive parent herself, to lead NCFA through a period of continued growth, and to keep us focused on our mission of finding families for all children,” Swim said.

Most recently, Ms. Robinson has served a range of nonprofit organizations as the founder and president of Capacity Partners, Inc., a well-respected Bethesda-based consulting firm specializing in philanthropy and nonprofit management services. Prior to establishing Capacity Partners, she served as president of ES Solutions, a former technology division of Marts & Lundy, national consulting firm for philanthropy in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. She has also held executive management positions for Bentz Whaley Flessner in Minneapolis and Wealth ID division of Thomson Financial Services in Rockville, Maryland. She was co-owner of DataPlus in Bethesda, director of development for the Washington International School in Washington, DC and Middle School head of the Notre Dame Sion Lower School in Kansas City, Missouri.

“I am honored to be named president and CEO of the National Council For Adoption,” Ms. Robinson said. “Hundreds of thousands of children around the globe are desperately in need of permanent families, yet we are witnessing a general decline in both domestic and intercountry adoption. NCFA, as one of the nation’s leading adoption advocates, can play a pivotal role in helping these children find loving homes. As an adoptive parent, I know first-hand the joys and challenges of adoption, as well as the awesome responsibility that goes with parenting. So I am approaching this assignment with the vision of an executive and the compassion of an adoptive mom.”

In her new role at NCFA, Ms. Robinson plans to stay actively involved in professional circles and community services. She was recently selected to participate in Leadership Montgomery in Montgomery County, Maryland, and she is a long-time peer reviewer for Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organization’s "Standards of Excellence" accreditation program. She has served on the board of trustees at the Washington Waldorf School in Bethesda and the Friends Community School in College Park, Maryland. She was selected to serve on the Montgomery County, Maryland Technology Investment Fund and is a member of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. She is also a frequent speaker at professional organizations.

Ms. Robinson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Brown University prior to earning a Master's Degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She lives in Bethesda, Maryland with her musician/songwriter husband and two teenagers.

NCFA is committed to serving the best interests of children and believes every child has a right to a loving, permanent family. Through research, education, and advocacy, NCFA provides adoption information to the general public, promotes ethical adoption practices, informs public policy and opinion leaders about adoption issues, and serves as a resource for women with unplanned pregnancies, adopted persons and their families, those seeking to adopt, and adoption professionals.


# # #

DEAR ABBY: I MARRIED A DOUCHEBAG

Well, that's not what Abby calls him, but what else could he be?

Son given up for adoption threatens marriage It figures he's from New Jersey

DEAR ABBY: I became an unwed mother many years ago, when there was a stigma attached to having an illegitimate child. Unable to care for my son, I placed him for adoption. He has now found me.

I have a family, and my husband does not want me to tell our adult children or contact the young man and his family.

Do I go against the wishes of my husband, whom I love very much, or should I tell our children and perhaps risk my husband leaving me? - CONFLICTED IN NEW JERSEY

What about "Husband threatens marriage"?

Empty this douchebag down the drain right now. Followed by scalding water. Followed by 20 minutes of garbage disposing.

Thanks to Jo Anne Swanson

SECRET HISTORIES, PUBLIC POLICIES: LAST CALL FOR PAPERS

Secret Histories, Public Policies

Mark your calendars! The 3rd Alliance for the Study of Adoption and Culture Conference: Secret Histories, Public Policies will be held at MIT, April 29-May 2, 2010. This will be THE adoption conference.

It's not too late to submit proposals, either. Below are details. Deadline is September 1, 2009.

Conference website is here

See you there!

Conference date: April 29 - May 2, 2010 << note new dates!
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

Proposal deadline: Sept. 1, 2009

Organized by the Alliance for the Study of Adoption and Culture

Conference Organizers:
Sally Haslanger (MIT), Marianne Novy (University of Pittsburgh), Charlotte Witt (UNH)

Adoption has often, though not always, involved secrecy. How has secrecy or openness affected the history, experience and representations of adoption?

•How have literature and film portrayed the impact of secrecy and disclosure on adoptees, birthparents, adoptive parents? What is the impact of recent revelations of secret histories in memoir, books such as The Girls Who Went Away, documentaries such as First Person Plural?

•How and why did adoption secrecy, and the practices it hides, develop differently in different cultures, countries, and even different states? Where are alternatives to secrecy practiced and how do they work? How has increasing openness in domestic adoption changed the experience of adoption? Why do laws sealing birth records have such staying power in the US?

• What public policies do our current adoption practices promote and what should they promote? What are the effects of secrecy and openness on the health and well-being of adoptees, birthparents and adoptive parents? What are the ethical implications of genetic testing for adoption practices? How can analysis of secrecy practice in adoption be applied to assisted reproduction?

• How should we distinguish secrecy, privacy, and confidentiality in relation to adoption?

• How does secrecy in adoption relate to race, economics, and sexual orientation? How does it work differently in transnational adoption, in adopting waiting children, children in foster care, and children with special needs?

• How can literary and film critics, philosophers, anthropologists, historians, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, legal scholars, activists, creative writers, culture studies scholars, and others enrich our understanding of these issues?

Papers should discuss representations of adoption (including representations of birthparents) in literature, film, and other arts, and/or interactions between adoption practices and culture(s) in fields such as those listed. We are also interested in readings of memoir, poetry, and fiction dealing with adoption, and will consider musicians and performance artists.

Confirmed keynote speakers are Ann Fessler, author of The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade, and DeAnn Borshay Liem, filmmaker of First Person Plural. Other expected speakers include Ellen Herman, Emily Hipchen, Margaret Homans, Mark Jerng, Carol Singley.

Please send 200-word proposals for papers or samples of creative work (of less than 10 pages) dealing with adoption, with a brief CV, to asac2010@mit.edu.

NEBRASKA: BABY BOY ANA HOME FOR GOOD!

Yesterday (August 18) Box Butte County Judge Charles Plantz dismissed the Baby Boy Ana/Baby Box Butte case; thus affirming his earlier decision to return the baby to his family permanently. According to a statement by Todd Recklng director of the Nebraska Division of Children and Family Service, all parties to the case agreed to the dismissal.

Reckling's statement is not posted on the DFS Safe Haven or DFS press release page. News reports, however, say that the parents, whose names remain confidential, will continue to work voluntarily with the department. The statement does not say what services they will use.

Baby Boy Ana is the first infant dropped off under Nebraska's "new and improved" baby dump law. We hope he is the last. The easiest way to follow this case is through reading Children of the Corn.

If any more news on this case surfaces, we'll keep you updated. The most detailed account of yesterday's hearing (so far) can be found at the Fremont Tribune.

Welcome home, Baby Boy Ana!

NEBRASKA: MORE DETAILS EMERGE ON BOX BUTTE CASE; LAWMAKERS STILL DON'T GET IT

The August 4 Lincoln Journal Star reported more details in the "safe haven" abandonment of Baby Box Butte, now known as Baby Boy Ana.

According to court documents, recounted by reporter Joanne Young, but not released to the public:

...show the baby boy still had a partial umbilical cord intact when dropped off by a woman who said she was the child's aunt. Without giving hospital staff her name or the mother's name, she provided some family medical history.

Two days later, while HHS was working on placing the baby with foster parents who could adopt him, a woman contacted HHS, saying she was the biological mother. Officials met shortly after that with her and the alleged father, maternal grandparents and aunt...

...Court documents show the mother, whose name has not been made public, reported she had not known she was pregnant until she went into labor.

She had started birth control, but had stopped after three months. She then noticed she was gaining weight, but never larger than "one size in jeans." She said she thought the "bloating" she was experiencing was from taking the birth control pill.

She had a period after stopping the pill and another two months later, she reported.

On July 20, she started cramping and felt the urge to push. That was when she realized she was pregnant, she said. She filled a bathtub with water, climbed in and delivered the baby. She sterilized a pair of scissors, cut the umbilical cord and used bobby pins to seal the ends.

She reported she was scared and didn't know what to do next. She knew about the safe haven law, and asked her sister to take the baby to the hospital.

At the meeting with the family, Mary Mockerman, a nurse at the hospital, identified the aunt as the woman who brought the baby in. She had given the aunt her personal, unpublished cell phone number and said the call requesting the baby be returned to the mother came to that cell number.

Dr. Bruce Forney, an Alliance family practice physician, examined and confirmed the mother had recently given birth.

The baby stayed at the hospital three nights, and both of the alleged parents visited the baby. The mother stayed at the hospital and began nursing the infant.

As discussed in our two previous entries, three days after his legal abandonment at Box Butte General Hospital in Alliance, Nebraska HHS and Box Butte County Judge Charles Plantz placed Baby Boy Ana with his grandmother and mother while HHS continued its investigation. The baby's permanent placement with his family is contingent on HHS findings.

Box Butte County Attorney Kathleen Hutchinson isn't pleased with the quick turn around. According to the same article, Hutchinson thinks the state needs to "step back and think about why the child was turned over to the state, and not rush into placement."

Unicam Speaker Mike Flood (left) agrees. "We need to look at the broader picture for all children who find themselves in this unthinkable situation."

Say what?

Baby Boy Ana would not be in this "unthinkable situation" now if Flood, his Unicam cronies (such as Sen. Arnie Struthman who is thrilled that the law he sponsored and "hoped would never be used" has been used), and outside agitators hadn't created this "unthinkable situation," first with LB 157 the Big Kids law, and later, it's aged down LB 1 Little Kids law.

We don't remember anybody (with the possible exception of Nurse Mary Mockerman) caring about what led up to Baby Boy Ana being turned over anonymously to the state and thrown into this "unthinkable situation" --until his family turned up to reclaim him from the loving arms of the state and his state-chosen adopters.

Nobody cared about the "unthinkable situation" of the woman, alone and frightened, who gave birth to Baby Boy Ana or about how Baby Boy Ana's father's parental rights were being sideswiped in the new and improved Nebraska Kid Grab.

We certainly don't remember Flood & Crew shedding tears, other than those of embarrassment, over the 50 Big Kids whose parents or guardians either dropped off or attempted to drop off at state approved dump sites during last year's Nebraska Fiasco.

None of these weepy crocks cared about the "broader picture" of how "all those children who find themselves in this unthinkable situation" felt last year about being shooed off into ERs courtesy of Nebraska's wacky lawmakers, while their families sped away from the parking lot under cover of law. Or how some of these parents and guardians in their own "unthinkable situation" were treated by HHS: portrayed as immature, uncaring, deadbeats, and criminals threatened with prosecution for following--sometimes on the advice of HHS employees--the letter of a two-sentence law that said it was legal and dandy for anyone to abandon anybody's kids of any age at government approved dump sites.

Last year Flood & Crew had no problem with the state's quick return of out-of-state dumpees. Cross-border kids barely had time to unload their backpacks at over-crowded childrens shelters before they were volleyed back home to be somebody else's problem.

And absolutely nobody cared about the speeding-bullet turn-around last November when the governor called a special session of the Unicam to "re-evaluate" child grabbing in Nebraska. Instead of dismantling their fiasco and taking the time to work out real solutions for Nebraska's massive child mental health and welfare mess (which by the way does NOT include newborn discard) they zipped through a re-write turning the Big Kid Law into a Little Kid Law erasing the most silent and small from public and political sight and conscience and continuing Big Kid limboland.

Baby dump addicts assume murder is the default solution for an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. They have convinced lawmakers and the gulliable uninformed public that there are only two options: the dumpster or legalized abandonment. Responsible alternatives aren't mentioned: counseling, public assistance, temporary surrender, permanent surrender for adoption, and family communication. When a parent trips down the fast track without knowing those real alternatives, she (and it's almost always a she) is praised for her courage. That is, for not defaulting to her natural instincts of discard and death. When she makes the "loving" decision to not kill her baby and runs to the nearest legal dumping ground, she is praised for using the law "to save a life." But when she realizes her panicked mistake and wants her child back, she's considered dangerous. After all, any woman who "safe havens" her baby though the state-advertised, encouraged, and facilitated dump program is a potential killer.

No one has argued that every newborn who is "safe havened" should be returned immediately upon request. Each case is unique. There is no indication in the Baby Boy Ana case that a quick return is not in the interest of everyone. Hospital staff, HHS, the baby's guardian ad litem, and the court agreed that the baby should go home immediately. Hutchinson, Flood and their ilk didn't learn a thing from the Nebraska Fiasco last year.

ADVERTISERS DUMP GLENN BECK

Not due to Glenn Beck's wanky adoption ideology, but good to hear-- according to Media Matters and the Color of Change:

Three companies who run ads during Glenn Beck -- NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance -- today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.

Color of Change said in it's press release:

The mobilization came after Beck called President Obama a "racist" who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" during an appearance last Tuesday on "Fox and Friends." More than 45,000 members responded to the call by signing a petition directed at advertisers, including LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com as well as Procter & Gamble.

What Beck is doing is race-baiting at its worst, it's dangerous and it's hard to imagine any company wanting their brand associated with it," said James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org. "Beck has now shown that his extreme views are more appropriate for a street corner than a major media program. He no longer deserves the backing of mainstream advertisers."

GEICO, Nutri-Systems, and UPS has not responded yet. Go here for more information.

UPDATE: Here are other advertisers still on the Beck bandwagon: Bowlfex, Nutrisystem, Gerber, UPS, Orbitz, Vontage, Ameritrade, and Verizon wireless

UPDATE: I hate to belabor Glenn Beck...but why not! This came across my screen earlier today: Our favorite adoptanut joking about poisoning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This oughtta look great on any future home study.




Pelosi, as third in line of presidential succession, is under Secret Service protection. People have been investigated for joking about far less. Will the SS or FBI look into Beck's little joke? I won't hold my breath.

True story from my mother: During the Nixon administration my mother got her hair done every Friday by a woman who ran a beauty shop in her home in Salem, Ohio. The woman was married to a disabled World War 2 vet. Sometime in the early 1970s surgical procedures were developed which enabled him to recover enough to get a job at a nearby VA Hospital. He was so upset at the shabby facilities and incompetent treatment he saw there that he wrote Nixon saying soldiers would be better off killed in Viet Nam than living at the VA Hospital. Shortly afterwards, on a quiet afternoon at a beauty shop in Salem, Ohio, the FBI came looking for the husband. According to them, he had threatened to kill the president by complaining about VA hospital conditions. My mother, a lifelong Republican and Nixon supporter, sat there in the chair and witnessed the whole thing. The incident contributed to her later disavowal of the Republican Party.

HER IMPERIAL HIGHNESS BASTARDETTE: MY KENYAN OBC PROVES IT

After decades of frustration, begging, pleading, demanding, threatening, theft, blackmail, political agitation, and ax throwing, I finally got my original birth certificate today!

And, as Bastardette always knew deep in her heart, she is of royal blood. A Romanoff, to be exact!

And born in Kenya!

Now that might seem a little far-fetched to those of little imagination, but it's true.

After I received my original Kenyan birth certificate today, I did a quick Internet search and found this picture of my my aunts, my grandfather, and my father, as a boy, (above) summering at their Lake Victoria palace. Although this picture was taken years before my birth, I now know for a fact that Bastardette was hovering in the clouds looking for an unobtrusive way to channel my way into the Russian royalty. I have yet to learn how and when my father (who I you assure was not murdered by the Commies in 1918 as reported) met and married Sylvia Plath, but my birth certificate says it's so it must be true!

Don't believe me? Here's my obc that proves I am who I say I am. Don't concern yourself with the "certified fake" seal. That's just a precaution to stop Internet birth certificate abuse.





Since I know you'd all prefer to stay home cooking or playing with your cats rather than wasting your time banging on the door of your local vital stats office demanding YOUR obc, I'm sharing the secret with you. Go here, fill in a simple form, and VOILA all your problems are solved.

It's quick!

It's easy!

It's free!

It's fun!

In fact, it's like being your very own adoption agency.

Do it!

Then let Bastardette (that's HIH Bastardette to you) know the family secrets the state has tried to hide from you.

MOTHER PANICKED, REGRETS "SAFE HAVEN": 1ST POST-NEBRASKA FIASCO BABY GOING HOME

Here's updates on the July 20 Box Butte baby dump case. (Go directly below this entry for entries posted by Baby Love Child and me on the case).

Thursday and Friday news reports (here, here, and here) circulated that the biological parents of the newborn had contacted authorities as early as July 22, to see about the return of the infant.

Saturday, the Alliance Star Herald and Omaha World-Herald gave details. The papers report that on July 22, two days after the baby was left at Box Butte General Hospital, the mother, her relatives, and the baby's father contacted the hospital, asking for the baby's return. The baby had been put on a routine 48-hour hold and officials were preparing to release him to a foster-to-adopt family. HHS, consequently, decided to keep the baby for another night at the hospital where both parents visited him, and the mother cared and stayed with him.

Reports in both papers are substantially the same. The quote below is from the Alliance Star-Herald, a more detailed account than appears in the World-Herald:

The biological parents of a baby boy abandoned under the state’s Safe Haven Act had asked for the baby to be returned after changing their minds about surrendering the child under the state’s Safe Haven law, according to court documents filed in Box Butte County Court.

An aunt dropped off the baby boy July 20, according to officials with the Department of Health and Human Services. The baby was placed on a 48-hour hold by law enforcement, which is standard practice in cases until custody is established with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

According to an affidavit filed by a guardian ad litem assigned to the case, the mother of the child didn’t realize she was pregnant and gave birth to the infant in a bathtub of water. She sterilized a pair of scissors, cut the umbilical cord and used bobby pins to seal the ends. The mother reported that she was scared and didn’t know what to do next. She heard about the Safe Haven law and requested that her sister deliver the baby to the hospital.

Two days later, the biological mother and relatives contacted a Box Butte General Hospital official and said that the biological parents wanted the baby. The baby had been ready for release and HHS officials were in the process of placing the baby with a foster-adoption family.

On July 23, under a plan arranged by HHS, Box Butte County Judge Charles Plantz (left) granted legal custody to the agency while the parents undergo genetic testing and psychological assessment. Plantz made it clear in his order that HHS should proceed with its plan to place the baby with his biological mother while its investigation continues. The maternal grandmother is taking a leave of absence from her job to help care for the infant and his mother. The Star-Herald says the grandmother will move into the mother's home, but the Herald-World says the mother will move into the grandmother's home. The father will be allowed easy access to the infant.

According to court documents, Larry Miller, the baby's court appointed guardian ad litem said, "NDHS believes this arrangement will provide safety for the baby." Hospital officials filed an affidavit in which they said they believe it would be best for the mother and baby to be together so the mom could nurse and bond with him. (Note: court documents are not available to the public; information on them comes from news reports.)

The next hearing on the case is scheduled for August 18. The HHS name assigned to the baby, the names of the parents, and the initials used in the court proceedings have not been released. The current location of the baby is unclear, but it sounds like he is with his mother.

*****

Baby dump promoters and the press went into a dither when the baby, as per Unicam specification, was delivered in tact to Box Butte General Hospital on July 20 by someone identified and now verified as the baby's aunt (mother's sister).

Nebraska politicians such as Arnie Struthman (right) and associated baybee pimps like to brag to scared and uninformed suckers that legalized anonymous baby dumping is a no-muss-no-fuss-no-questions-asked-walk away-from-the-problem child surrender with no legal or social consequences. Apparently, these propagandists forgot to tell this to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. HHS threw out a dragnet for the parents as soon as the baby was dropped of.

As I posted last week, HHS publicized far and wide:

It’s important to gather information like family medical history to meet this child’s current and future needs.

HHS spokesperson, Jeanne Atkinson went even farther. According to in the July 23 Omaha World-Herald:

A newborn dropped off this week under Nebraska's revised safe haven law might have to spend six months or more in foster care unless his parents can be found.State law allows courts to terminate parental rights after children have been abandoned for six months or more.That would free the infant boy, who was left at a western Nebraska hospital Monday evening, for adoption.Getting an adoption finalized could take additional time, said Jeanne Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services.

See, the folks at HHS (for all their missteps during the late Nebraska Fiasco), know that "safe haven" is a spurious law that conflicts with all sorts of state and national child welfare laws and policies, not to mention professional child welfare standards and ethics, not to mention it's bad for the kid and its permanent legal disposition, not to mention it makes the state look like its turning its children into figili della Madonna. After the Nebraska Fiasco, any attempt at legal anonymous newborn dump and grab will raise questions and hackles.

When I first heard that the parents of Baby Box Butte had come forward (with no details) I thought either they (1) wanted to reclaim him or (2) wanted to make legal surrender and adoption proceedings easier. Scenario 1 is usually the case when parents come forward. They realize they panicked or were misinformed and want their baby back. In Scenario 2, parents realize they panicked or were misinformed and want to make a genuine adoption plan for the good of their child and themselves. In the nearly 10 years I've researched legalized dumping I have not found one single case where a parent or a family member who petitioned for return was denied.

I believe there are two reasons for this:

• Child welfare workers by in large do not like "safe haven" laws and except when thwarted by legal anonymity laws that binds their hands, hold a higher child welfare standard than do politicians and amateur do-gooders via counseling, education, and informed consent whether the final decision of the parent(s) be reunification, kinship care, temporary foster care, or adoption.

• The state fears if victims of "safe havening" are not returned, except for good cause, a parent or relative will seek legal redress. Since "safe haven" laws are already dancing on thin ice, the chance of overturning a law on constitutional grounds given the right circumstances in any state, is good. Not only would costly time-consuming litigation be necessary, but if the plaintiff were successful the entire law could be overturned, and adoption placements of safe havened children be vacated. If the case goes up the law ladder far enough, the entire Ponzi scheme could collapse throughout the country. Keeping families in tact post-dump, then, is simply utilitarian even if it is the right thing to do.
  

For more on the constitutional problems with "safe haven" read Erik L. Smith here and here.

Congratulations to Judge Plantz for the quick turnaround on this case and putting the skids on further harm to this family. I hope the soon-to-be permanently reunited family gets the support and assistance it needs, and that others who may be in similar circumstances study this cautionary tale and seek real help and support, not the state-facilitated political feel-good baby abandonment solution they will regret.

******

This seems as good a place as any to add this note.

I know that many find it difficult to believe that some pregnant women are unaware of their pregnancies. I've been less skeptical. I believe that sometimes women are in deep deep denial but in other cases they simply don't have regular pregnancy symptoms or are misdiagnosed.

A good friend of mine was 6 1/2 months pregnant before she was finally diagnosed. She had always been told she could not have children. When she exhibited pregnancy symptoms at least two OB-GYNs guaranteed her she was not pregnant. When she was referred to a specialist in a near-by town, guess what! Since then, I've been rather interested in this phenomena and always read articles on the subject when they pop up in the popular press. There is also quite a bit of academic literature on the subject. The truth is, undiagnosed and unknown pregnancy is not as rare as you'd think.

The Learning Channel is currently running a show, I Didn't Know I was Pregnant. I watched several episodes last week. The women featured don't appear to be mentally disturbed or in deep denial. They are not baby dumpers or potential dumpers. The simply had little or no reason to suspect they were pregnant. The show's website features Top 10 Reasons Why Women Don't Know They are Pregnant, a succinct lay guide to undetected pregnancy.

NOTE: This entry is cross-posted to Children of the Corn.