With state Senators talking about shrinking the window for parents to take advantage of the state's Safe Haven law from 19 years to 72 hours, at least one family prefers things the way they are. I'm now at the point where I wish senators would just scrap the whole thing and start over. The entire system needs a thorough review.
I got to thinking this morning about one thing that hasn't been discussed very much in this kerfuffle: adoption. Adoption is the typical result of safe haven use for young children, so you might wonder what the big deal is. Currently, adoption is really more of a side effect of the safe haven process. I encourage the State to find a way to make adoption a more explicit part not only of the safe haven protocol, but also of services available beyond the safe haven window. By putting more of the focus on adoption, birth parents can have more control over what happens to their child(ren). That empowerment can prove to be an important component in helping the parents deal with the short- and long-term emotional trauma that may accompany their decision. Wouldn't you rather leave your child in the loving arms of "the Smiths" than in the sterile bureaucracy of "the State"?
In addition, any modified safe haven bill must include requirements for some sort of parental accountability. For example, it is not asking too much of a birth parent to require her to provide a brief health history. A simple, fifteen-minute health questionnaire can provide a child with a wealth of information that may prove useful in diagnosing or preventing a number of health problems throughout life.
The current safe haven law is absurd for its naive simplicity, but at least it did one thing well: it started some much-needed discussions. Unfortunately, the proposed 72-hour limit is likewise far too simple to be of much practical use. We do not need a massive new bureaucracy -- I'm certainly not proposing that kind of inevitable disaster -- but we do need a more complete system than that which is before us; note, please, that a more complete system need not be complex. Our primary goal ought to be to give parents tools to keep their children out of a dangerous home situation, and to place those children in healthy environments where they have the opportunity to prosper. Surely that requires more thought and energy than a 3-day abandonment period negotiated by lame duck senators via the telephone.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
My wife and I discussed this (not using it, but the law itself, since I moved out when I was 15 years old) and her thoughts are that 72 hours is an insult. Most mothers with decent insurance aren’t even out of the hospital yet even with a normal pregnancy, and PPD wouldn’t set in for a week or sometimes weeks more. I would think that a month to a few would be workable. Ive known parents where it took the actual birth for them to get their head out and realize that baby comes before PS2 accessories, and sometimes money/health issue can be resolved with a tightening of the family network. 72 hours just seems as badly thought out as not defining ‘child’ and letting the assumption fall on current statutory definitions.
I had the same reaction as you. Obviously they need to entirely scrap the law now because its ridiculous to have people crossing state lines to dump teenagers in our hospitals. But don’t literally throw the baby out with the bathwater by imposing a time frame that is TOO short.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.