Perennial clownster California Assemblyman Alberto Torrico is back
Recently our favorite Kalifornia Kollectivist and his prankster friends Assbs Bonnie Garcia and Todd Spitzer introduced AB 81, described as “almost identical” to last session’s Schwarzenegger-vetoed AB 1873, a bill which expanded the test drive time…er I mean, age of kids that parents can no-muss -no-fuss drop off anonymously at the neighborhood fire station. Currently babies no older than 3 days are eligible for legal dumping. Torrico wants to raise the age to 30 days to give moms time to decide if sleep deprivation, dirty diapers, and post-partum depression are worth it. (Be careful what you ask for Al!) If you don’t believe me, go to Stupid things Californians Say about Baby Safe Haven Laws. By the time AB 81 is over with, there will probably be enough material for Volume 2.
It’s one thing when the CranksRUs at Bastard Nation and other uppity adoptee and adoption reforms groups oppose a safe haven bill. What else can you expect? We’re selfish, spoiled, and ungrateful that we weren’t dumpsterized.
But AB 1873 was opposed by the heavy hitters of the California safe haven movement: impeccably credentialed LA County Supervisor Don Knabe and Debi Faris-Cifelli keeper of the Garden of Angels baby cemetery in Yuicapa. They, along with the LA County District Attorney, LA County Sheriff, California State Welfare Directors Association, and California Department of Social Services strenuously opposed the age expansion fearing that it would dilute the whole point of the original law which was a “safe haven” for mothers is a so-called “crisis” situation and keep babies in a dangerous or neglectful environment. They even used OUR argument that safe haven would be used as a way to get around traditional surrender. (heh! heh!) As Faris-Cifelli wrote to Schwarzenegger, “[AB 1873] changes the dynamics of the law.” No kidding! And Schwarzenegger agreed.
The extension of age limits is a natural growth of safe haven law. Dr. Pierce saw newborn legal abandonment as the nose nudged through the door for legal older child abandonment. If California lets this AB 81 pass, it will shove that door wide open.
BTW, inquiring minds want to know: Where does the National Safe Haven Alliance stand on this bill?
Why don’t they just write a bill for everyone to dump any one they are tired of…old husbands, wives, college kids(they sure are expensive now aren’t they?)Grannies, etc.Why, there is no limit to the number of human beings who could be dumped.
According to this that’s already been done: http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1778640&ml=fp%3D1%26fx%3D
BTW: Jack was a lot better in his new movie, the Departed.
I went to Grouper and got a message that the video is no longer available. What was it?
Marley, on another adoption topic, I thought you may want to be aware of since it involves your state of Ohio: Ive stumbled across some adopter blogs involving Ohio, which indicate that the birthfather need not be named by the mother, in order to adopt it out. The agencies also stress to perspective parents that putative father registries are really used. It honestly sounds to me like most birthfathers are not even told about “the adoption plan”. Are mothers being advised by agencies in OH to NOT name the father, or tell him about the child at all?
bijou
Dear Bijou:
The Ohio putative father registry relieves an Ohio adoption agency from needing to ask the unwed mother about a father’s identity. The agency must ask only if any man has been adjudicated as the father by an administrative department or court. Regarding infants, the answer will almost always be “no.” In that case, the agency need only search the registry. The PFR was enacted to eliminate the need to rely on unwed mothers for identification of biological fathers.
Erik L. Smith