Who's safety is being protected by Haven Laws?
Niels brought attention to the following article about Nebraska's new safe-haven proposal:
LINCOLN — Nebraska hospitals have no clue who they might find on their doorsteps when the state's unique "safe haven" law goes into effect Friday.
It could be fragile newborns left by frightened and desperate young women. Or it could be unruly teenagers dropped off by frustrated parents.
State lawmakers were most concerned about newborns when they passed the law earlier this year that will allow people to abandon children at hospitals without fear of prosecution.
Nebraska was the last state to adopt such legislation. The law, along with most others passed by the 2008 Legislature, takes effect Friday.
Nebraska's safe haven law does not set an age limit on the children who can be left at hospitals. That potentially means children up to age 19.
The maximum age under safe haven laws in other states is 1 year old, and most limit dropoffs to within 72 hours to one month after birth.
"It's not necessarily a unique goal of the law, but it's a unique approach," said State Sen. Pete Pirsch of Omaha, whose compromise amendment became Nebraska's law.
Pirsch's compromise broke a legislative deadlock over whether to set an age limit on the law and how to deal with parental rights. Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, a longtime opponent of safe haven laws, said he wanted the law to benefit older children.
"To me, the important thing was to get through a safe haven bill," said Pirsch, adding that he doesn't expect problems because of the broader age range of Nebraska's law. He said parents typically call law enforcement if they have problems with their teens.
Karen Authier, executive director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society adoption agency, worries that such predictions are too optimistic.
She said her agency and others already have gotten disturbing calls from people talking about using the new law to drop off children who are more than a year old.
If they follow through, she said, their children could be badly traumatized by the experience.
"I hope this bill isn't misused," Authier said. "Because it's written so broadly, it could be misinterpreted as encouraging people to abandon children."
It's obvious to me, adoption agencies would much rather have infants than older children in need of a family. That being said...
If frightened parents are the problem, what's being done to change those circumstances? Where is the "safety" in selling children through an adoption-system that fails to address the cause of parental abandonment? Seems to me it's safe for an agency to claim a child (who cannot speak), "He was found on a doorstep or dumpster, left by his mother". Yes, heaven forbid The Haven System admits, "We choose not to save the parents; instead we want to sell babies without the hassle of parental involvement".
All one has to do is look at NJ's alarming and blatant disclaimer found on their Haven pages:
The parents — or someone acting on their behalf — can bring a baby less than 30 days old to any hospital emergency room or police station. The Division of Youth and Family Services will take the child into custody and place the infant in a foster or pre-adoptive home. http://www.njsafehaven.org/
"No questions asked". [Gives new meaning to the "don't ask, don't tell" discussions, eh?] 
If "panicking parenting" is the problem, what's being done to teach better parenting, (aside from parenting classes made available through private adoption agencies)?!
Comments
unexpected yet futile opposition
In 2004 the the North Platte Telegraph, yes that is a news paper, ran an article in which the executive director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society, a private child placement agency, oposes the safe haven laws. For once I wished the state legislators had listened to the words of an ageny representative.