Ok, so I am doing my final for verbal communications on Safe Haven laws. I am kind of discouraged by some of the laws some states have come up with regarding this issue though. One thing that particularly bothers me, is that some states have decided to prosecute the abondoning parents. What bothers me about this is, if they are planning on presecuting these parents, then how do they expect them to be comfortable enough and not afraid to turn over their newborn to a Safe Haven?? I personally would rather they just let them go, at least that way we would know the infant would be safe and alive rather than left in a dumpster to die somewhere all because the parents were scared and didnt know what to do and didnt want to get in trouble if they abondoned their infant even in a safe place. What do you all think?

I have a huge problem with parents being prosecuted. If there is such thing as a safe haven, it needs to be just that with no strings attached. I think the whole concept of the safe haven is to allow a place for babies to be brought safely without moms suffering the same consequences as they would if they just threw the babies in the dumpster. When you start convicting these women as felons, then what is going to make them choose a safe haven which comes with serious consequences over a dumpster where they may never get caught?

I think the purpose of Safe Haven laws is to protect the babies. If they want to prosecute the parents, then the parents probably won't take the time to take the babies to a safe place. I think these laws are unfortunately necessary and parents should NOT be prosecuted.

this is what i try to bring up whenever i see a news article and i am told i am wrong. many times a parent will drop their baby off at a "safe haven" location and then the news and other media outlets go crazy trying to find the mother under the pretense of "making sure there are no medical conditions" or "trying to find out why she did this". the point of safe haven laws is not to even try to find the mother. if the mother comes forward great but don't actively seek her out

I completely agree with you guys! I was reading over some of the laws of the 45 states that have the Safe Haven legislation, and some of them are rediculous! Like they demand (that is the word they used) that a baby be no older than 72 hours old--some states go up to 5 days old--and the infant must also be visibly unharmed before they will release the mother! I can understand that they want to protect the baby and everything, but regardless if the mother may have harmed her child, she is obviously aware of it if she is bringing the baby to the Safe Haven in the first place. And in most cases, the child was harmed because the mother/father decided to dump the baby first then changed their minds and brought the infant somewhere safe. And about half of the infants abandoned come from people who's minds are not functioning correctly whether it is from mental illness, drugs or immaturity.

I completely agree with you guys! I was reading over some of the laws of the 45 states that have the Safe Haven legislation, and some of them are rediculous! Like they demand (that is the word they used) that a baby be no older than 72 hours old--some states go up to 5 days old--and the infant must also be visibly unharmed before they will release the mother! I can understand that they want to protect the baby and everything, but regardless if the mother may have harmed her child, she is obviously aware of it if she is bringing the baby to the Safe Haven in the first place. And in most cases, the child was harmed because the mother/father decided to dump the baby first then changed their minds and brought the infant somewhere safe. And about half of the infants abandoned come from people who's minds are not functioning correctly whether it is from mental illness, drugs or immaturity.


It's called child abuse and yes, I believe those should be prosocuted. This law is ALL about the babies.

It's called child abuse and yes, I believe those should be prosocuted. This law is ALL about the babies.

Yes abandoning a child is child abuse, but would you rather have the parents actually take the child to a safe haven knowing it is ok then be too scared to take them because they may get in trouble, and instead dump them on the side of the road?

Yes abandoning a child is child abuse, but would you rather have the parents actually take the child to a safe haven knowing it is ok then be too scared to take them because they may get in trouble, and instead dump them on the side of the road?

But they were already dumped. Thus being injured. I dont care, yes, they should be charged. If they would have taken them to a "safe haven" in the first place, there wouldnt be that problem.

I am all for safe haven laws. But I am NOT for the the "parent" if they cause injury to child beforehand.

Isnt that why we have adoptions?

I do not think prosecuting these parents is the right thing to do. Instead it will create the complete opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Sometimes I seriously wonder what goes through politicians heads.

I have a huge problem with parents being prosecuted. If there is such thing as a safe haven, it needs to be just that with no strings attached. I think the whole concept of the safe haven is to allow a place for babies to be brought safely without moms suffering the same consequences as they would if they just threw the babies in the dumpster. When you start convicting these women as felons, then what is going to make them choose a safe haven which comes with serious consequences over a dumpster where they may never get caught?

Ditto.

I understand that law and think that it is a good thing for the baby. I agree that a parent who brings a baby in to a Safe Haven unharmed should not be charged with any crime. But a parent that brings in a injured child should be charged with child abuse.

Yes abandoning a child is child abuse, but would you rather have the parents actually take the child to a safe haven knowing it is ok then be too scared to take them because they may get in trouble, and instead dump them on the side of the road?

Donna meant your reference to the children brought to a safe haven after first being abandoned and thus, harmed.

i think that parents shouldnt be prosecuted for giving up their unharmed and safe child if they deem it necessary... but i think a parent who has hurt that child FIRST should be prosecuted.

Donna meant your reference to the children brought to a safe haven after first being abandoned and thus, harmed.

i think that parents shouldnt be prosecuted for giving up their unharmed and safe child if they deem it necessary... but i think a parent who has hurt that child FIRST should be prosecuted.

:agree that is what I was trying to say :giggle

Donna meant your reference to the children brought to a safe haven after first being abandoned and thus, harmed.

i think that parents shouldnt be prosecuted for giving up their unharmed and safe child if they deem it necessary... but i think a parent who has hurt that child FIRST should be prosecuted.

yep, i agree with you Bryanna

Isnt that why we have adoptions?

I also agree with you Jenny!
I mean, why not just give your baby up for adoption?

I do not think prosecuting these parents is the right thing to do. Instead it will create the complete opposite of what they are trying to achieve. Sometimes I seriously wonder what goes through politicians heads.

I couldnt agree with you more! I was appalled(sp?) when I read that stipulation to the law!

:agree that is what I was trying to say :giggle

Oh gotcha gotcha!

I couldnt agree with you more! I was appalled(sp?) when I read that stipulation to the law!

so you think it's crazy that a mother is prosocuted for turning over a "injured" infant?:confuzzle

I also agree with you Jenny!
I mean, why not just give your baby up for adoption?

That I do not understand. I mean it would be SO much easier and safer than abandoning the helpless infant! I did read though, that most of the women that do abandon their infants try and hide their pregnancies and everything and most of them dont deliver in the hospital. So I think it is more a thing of convenience for them to try and make it look like its not there and make the "problem" disappear rather than take responsibility for it.

so you think it's crazy that a mother is prosocuted for turning over a "injured" infant?:confuzzle

No, not an injured infant. I was just upset that they would prosecute a mother for abandoning an infant to a safe haven at all. If it was obviously purposely beaten before hand, then I would hope they would do something to the woman! But if it was injured due to the way it was delivered (i.e. in the toilet) then I dont think they should.

No, not an injured infant. I was just upset that they would prosecute a mother for abandoning an infant to a safe haven at all. If it was obviously purposely beaten before hand, then I would hope they would do something to the woman! But if it was injured due to the way it was delivered (i.e. in the toilet) then I dont think they should.

I was going based off the example that you gave. That they abandoned the baby elsewhere (causing injury) and then changed their mind and took them to the safe haven.

I was going based off the example that you gave. That they abandoned the baby elsewhere (causing injury) and then changed their mind and took them to the safe haven.
Yes because I dont think they should be prosecuted for that. In the articles I read, many many women will give birth to a baby in an obscure place and at first try to leave it there, then after feeling horribly guilty, they come back a short time later and take the baby somewhere they feel safe. IMO they did the right thing; maybe not at first, but in the end they did. If they had tried to beat the baby to death or puposely try to kill it, then yes they should be prosecuted.

Yes because I dont think they should be prosecuted for that. In the articles I read, many many women will give birth to a baby in an obscure place and at first try to leave it there, then after feeling horribly guilty, they come back a short time later and take the baby somewhere they feel safe. IMO they did the right thing; maybe not at first, but in the end they did. If they had tried to beat the baby to death or puposely try to kill it, then yes they should be prosecuted.

I dont know. IMO, that baby (general) didnt ask for any of it. I dont care how old the mother is or if she is afraid. This ISNT about HER, it's about the baby. If that baby suffers an injury because she chose to abandon it, then yes she should be prosecuted.

I have a huge problem with parents being prosecuted. If there is such thing as a safe haven, it needs to be just that with no strings attached. I think the whole concept of the safe haven is to allow a place for babies to be brought safely without moms suffering the same consequences as they would if they just threw the babies in the dumpster. When you start convicting these women as felons, then what is going to make them choose a safe haven which comes with serious consequences over a dumpster where they may never get caught?

I agree with this. :tu

Isnt that why we have adoptions?

if you're a teenager trying to hide being pregnant from your family (and yes, people have), then giving it up for adoption would end up blowing your cover... you'd need a safe haven type place to take care of it for you.

take responsibility for it.

That's the word there. No one, I should say a lot of people are not made or taught to take responsibility for their actions.