Sunday, a curious post popped up on alt.adoption from our friends, the Massachusetts Morriseys. It appeared in an ongoing thread on what else but… baby dumps! I’m publishing the post in full, including the prior comment in which a poster discusses the difference between traditional sealed records and safe haven no records.
The difference is that a record does exist with closed adoptions and that the b-mom took some control of how the child she created, bore and delivered was relinquished. There is always the hope that those records will become available to the person they are about.
Raymond
Once again here’s the record in Massachusetts. All 4 babies safely
surrendered under the Baby Safe Haven law have full medical histories,
and 3 have full family histories. Women are encouraged to give all of
this information at any time as they are fully immune from
prosecution. There’s an ongoing effort to have women return following
a safe haven surrendering to give this info at any time.
Prior to passage of the law 3/4 of babies lost their medical history,
and heritage through death or refusal of women to give the info due to
possible prosecution. That data is absolute for the 4 year period
prior to passage of the law, and it goes back even further if need be
for research.
We’re not going back to the days of deadly abandonments and heritage
stripping in Massachusetts due to inferior research and ill advised
opinions. We’ll keep Baby Safe Haven.
Ms
(If you’d like to read the entire thread you can get alt.adoption through your newsreader or Google Groups. The thread is called “TEXAS – NEWS – Infant handed over at fire station.”)
The Morriseys know jack about adoption (less than I know about video production), so it’s hard to say what they are talking about exactly. What do they mean by “full family history”? I wrote that I found it “interesting” that 3/4 of Massachusetts’ anonymous safe haven cases may actually be “disclosed,” but the Ms response didn’t respond to my response. I did, however, get the usual uppity-assed insinuation some kind of vague ungrateful adoptee activity on my part. All but one sentence of my original post was clipped from their response:
But the state wasn’t facilitating the loss. There’s a huge difference.
Marley
The numbers are the huge difference. You know them well. In the 4
years your groups fought the passage of the MA Baby Safe Haven law 6
of 13 babies abandoned died. Of the 7 who either barely survived or
were similar to safe haven surrendered more then half will have no
heritage of medical records because the Moms/Dads are to be
incarcerated/prosecuted.That’s 3/4 of the babies in four years either dead or as you say
“stripped.”
You are calling for the return of those kinds of statistics. And you
have no data or factual reports to back you up.
“There’s a huge difference.” We agree Baby Safe Havens works!
Ms
INQUIRING MINDS
Safe haven laws are marketed by the Morriseys and their ilk as a “safe and secret choice” for “desperate mothers” so afraid of being caught in the act of motherhood that they’ll kill their babies unless the government lets them dump and run at an ER or police station. That three out of four Massachusetts dumpers, according to them, took the time to submit “full medical” and “full family” histories–and perhaps even identified themselves–then, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. These desperate moms sure don’t sound like they’re getting ready to play a game of Toss the Baybee in the alley behind the laundramat. Instead, they’re doing a drive-by relinquishment–or as Dr. Pierce liked to say, “a nonbureaucratic placement.” You know, for those clucks who find the way everybody else does adoption too burdensome. Or maybe they had no idea what they were doing, and nobody was about to tell them. Gotta keep that coffer full. Whatever. Let’s hope these sensitive souls never want to buy a house. As far as I know squatting is still illegal in Boston, but perhaps the Morriseys, John Tobin, Barry Finegold and their socialist jackboots could fix that, too.
If we take the Morriseys’ claim at face value, all sorts of questions arise, the basic being: why bother with anonymity if you’re gonna give it all away? All adoptions in Massachusetts are confidential and closed legal proceedings anyway. How can an anonymous abandonment not be anonymous and still be called anonymous? It’s confusing.
Here’s some more questions:
Did the parents (who I assume are all mothers) receive professional counseling?
Were parents informed that all adoptions are confidential?
Were parents told that by using safe haven that they were not surrendering their child for adoption, but instead providing evidence to be used in an adversarial proceeding in which they have a right and duty to appear? That by using safe haven they would default their hearing?
Were fathers identified? Or even involved?
Were the dumpers really potential killers who blackmailed the state into negotiating with them?
Were these cases genuine safe haven relinquishments or run-of-the-mill hospital abandonments flipped into the safe haven pot to cook the stats?
If Massachusetts ever passes a real open records law, will the safe-havened be exempt from receiving identifying information on their parent(s) if it is on file? Will they even get non-identifying information if available?
If the safe-havened are not adopted, will they be able to access their birth records, including identifying information? They can’t’ go through life being called Baby Girl Dumped or Baby Beacon Hill. (Or maybe they can!) Will the safe-havened-but-not-adopted be denied an official identity?
What exactly is a safe haven in Massachusetts–not what the laws reads, but how it’s practiced?
Why do the Morriesys know so much about these cases if all information is embargoed by the state? Shouldn’t their kitchen table hotline gossip be “confidential”? Oops! I mean anonymous! Did the Ms or their hacks in low places tunnel their way into the file room and grab the files? Is there a mole in Farnsworth Street?
SAFE HAVENS ARE THE NEW SEALED RECORDS ONLY BETTER
The National Council for Adoption has made no secret about its safe haven interest: secret, sealed adoptions. Here’s a snippet from NCFA’s press release after the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute issued its Unintended Consequences report in 2003:
The strongest opponents of Safe Haven laws are the same activists and academics who advocate eliminating the option of privacy in adoption. Highest on their agenda is allowing adopted persons to open confidential adoption records unilaterally and retroactively without the knowledge or consent of birthparents, despite the birthparents’ having been promised privacy at the time of their placements. Among the Donaldson Institute’s top priorities is “educating policymakers and the public about the importance of giving adopted people access to information about their origins.” Because Safe Haven laws allow women to relinquish their newborns anonymously, these opponents see the laws as a new threat to their agenda of opening all adoption records.
What’s so amusing about this all is that although NCFA has stated repeatedly the purpose of safe havens is to maintain the sealed records status quo for industrial moneymuckers, the Morriseys and their friends deny it. Barring the possibility that the entire safe haven pack is illiterate, why do they continue this charade? NCFA president Tom Atwood is the president of the National Safe Haven Alliance and the Alliance operates out of NCFA’s address in Alexandria. How hard do wannabe social workers need be hit in the head before they figure out this is not about baby saving, but manipulating adoptee identity, keeping bastards in their place, and maintaining a closed unaccountable adoption system.
At least NCFA is honest about that it’s up to. What the rest of the pack chewing on?
Your credibility has sunk below the lower mantle of the earth’s
crust.
First you and your comrades cry and bemoan Baby Safe Haven laws
because as you say they’re “heritage strippers” and should not be
passed, especially here in Massachusetts. Even when 13 babies are
abandoned, 6 dead and 3/4 of them either heritage stripped or lost
through death.
Then when proper programs are put in place following the passage of
the laws so that women can come forward at any time to give both the
medical and family histories for their babies you weep and moan that
the laws should be repealed.
Which way do you want it???
We fought you and your groups for passage of Baby Safe Haven, fought
for proper programs to encourage women to give backgrounds through
counseling and confidentiality, and now you just sit on a supposed
high horse and take pot shots at all involved for doing exactly what
you so bitterly fought for.
Your next “report” will again be written without a single
jurisdictional authority’s input, and just be more cheap shots.
By the way, there’s no “Baby Girl Dumped” or “Baby Beacon Hill.” The
last baby we named Baby IRIS, for Infant Relinquished In Safety.
She’s happy, healthy, and in a good home. Just like our granddaughter
of almost the exact same age — born days apart, she most likely is
starting to sit up and eat solid foods.
Sincerely,
Ms
Proud to be the “socialist jackboots” from MA
http://www.babysafehavennewengland.com
Your credibility has sunk below the lower mantle of the earth’s
crust.
First you and your comrades cry and bemoan Baby Safe Haven laws
because as you say they’re “heritage strippers” and should not be
passed, especially here in Massachusetts. Even when 13 babies are
abandoned, 6 dead and 3/4 of them either heritage stripped or lost
through death.
Then when proper programs are put in place following the passage of
the laws so that women can come forward at any time to give both the
medical and family histories for their babies you weep and moan that
the laws should be repealed.
Which way do you want it???
We fought you and your groups for passage of Baby Safe Haven, fought
for proper programs to encourage women to give backgrounds through
counseling and confidentiality, and now you just sit on a supposed
high horse and take pot shots at all involved for doing exactly what
you so bitterly fought for.
Your next “report” will again be written without a single
jurisdictional authority’s input, and just be more cheap shots.
By the way, there’s no “Baby Girl Dumped” or “Baby Beacon Hill.” The
last baby we named Baby IRIS, for Infant Relinquished In Safety.
She’s happy, healthy, and in a good home. Just like our granddaughter
of almost the exact same age — born days apart, she most likely is
starting to sit up and eat solid foods.
Sincerely,
Ms
Proud to be the “socialist jackboots” from MA
http://www.babysafehavennewengland.com
Who cares about giving dumpers the opportunity to supply information *if they feel like it*?
Big deal.
The furnishing of identifying information must be a LEGAL PREREQUISITE for relinquishment.
It’s about giving them the LEGAL RIGHT to WITHOLD information that rightfully belongs to that child.
That’s WRONG.
Gee, I must have hit a nerve. I was simply asking questions that not only I have, but have been asked of me by “ordinary people,” social workers and lawyers. These questions and more have to be addressed at some point. Since you know so much about SH, I thought you’d have the answers.
If you think SH won’t be challenged successfully by somebody with standing, then continue to doubt on. IMO, a successful challenge will come from the “other parent” or perhaps an ICWA litigant, but you never know. It might be a nice project for a public law firm. I haven’t met a lawyer yet who didn’t think that SH is unconstitutional and if challenged will fall.
Marley
Yet again those old dependable Neaderthals from Lexington give the Commonwealth a bad name. More importantly, from their lofty perch high above the unwashed masses they purport to know better than hordes of experienced professionals who have made great strides in DISCOURAGING women to make impulsive decisions dangerous to them and their babies. The M’s are perpetrating a fraud on women, a fraud on America and all to further elevate themselves and burnish their do gooder credentials. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but sooner or later their self serving drivel will be revealed for what it is – a cruel, self aggrandizing fantasy. Unfortunately, by then a lot of other women will be exploited and their children endangered.
By the way, where are you self righteous morons when the Rebecca Riley’s of the world are found dead? How about all those Massachusetts foster kids whose bodies litter the Commonwealth? Where are you for them, you phonies? How about those kid? Oh, I forgot….they are good product for your cronies in the adoption industry. And don’t kid a kidder – that’s what this is all about, you losers!
In the state where I live mothers(if they are really mothers..who knows) think they are ‘relinquishing ‘ their children when they use the safe haven law. Actually, they are ‘abandoning their children’ and will be processed through the court system as parents who neglected and abandoned their children.
When I asked lawmakers about this, they called a magistrate in to testify and he said they ‘didn’t know where else to put it in the law.’