Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Why is this on Doenetwork?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Mt. Lookout, WV
    Posts
    700

    Why is this on Doenetwork?

    Wrong place for this thread probably, but since so many babies are killed, thought this might be the best place?

    Anyway, this baby

    http://doenetwork.org/hot/hotcase671.html

    was surrendered safely, legally and anonimously under the Safe Haven law. Does anyone other than me see a problem with putting out info trying to figure out who the baby belonged to? If they wanted people to know, they would have introduced themselves.

    I just think that something like this discourages people from using the Safe Haven law. I was shocked to see it on the Doenetwork.

    Anyone else have a thought?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,813
    OMG!!! I don't understand why that would be posted there.
    I do not agree with that AT ALL.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    This is wrong to do! Why would they even state the baby was surrendered under Safe Haven and yet still want to know who the mother is? This makes no sense, and its not good for anyone considering surrendering their baby if they are going to feel "hunted". If I was this baby's mother I'd be horrified. The law is NOT supposed to work that way! This makes me mad...I'm going to email them.

    ETA: I also don't think it's right to label her a "victim". Victim of what?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    My email to them:

    "If this baby was surrendered under "Safe Haven", WHY are you looking for information on her. It's NOT how Safe Haven works. How many mother's will be afraid to surrender their babies to a safe place when they now know there are efforts to find them? This infant should not even be on the Doe site. What the mother did is not a crime and she should not feel hunted by law enforcement. She was surrendered under provisions of an act to guarantee the anonymity of the mother and preserve the life of the infant. This is far better than finding a dead infant in a dumpster! How many women have you scared off from doing what is right and LEGAL when they don't want their baby. This is not a missing child and should have never been posted on the Doe site. I think y'all need to READ what the SAFE HAVEN ACT is about. You might save a baby's life."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,705
    Maybe the baby was born with drugs or alcohol in their system or some genetic disease they need information on, or that only the family's blood/bone marrow etc can help with? I don't know, just wondering.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    20,222
    Maybe the child was abused and they want to press charges?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Taximom View Post
    Maybe the baby was born with drugs or alcohol in their system or some genetic disease they need information on, or that only the family's blood/bone marrow etc can help with? I don't know, just wondering.
    Regardless, Safe Haven doesn't work that way. It allows them to give up the baby...no questions asked.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    20,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Taximom View Post
    Maybe the baby was born with drugs or alcohol in their system or some genetic disease they need information on, or that only the family's blood/bone marrow etc can help with? I don't know, just wondering.
    Oh or this too. To me it seems like something may be wrong and they want to locate the parents.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,348
    I sent an email also. Hope they take it down. Looks like a cute healthy baby. I hope she has the best life can give. The mother did the right thing so I hope she is not found and hassled.
    "Life ain't hard, just get a job and don't kill anybody." by richandfamous

    "Even my moderation is excessive." by richandfamous

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    11,409
    Quote Originally Posted by richandfamous View Post
    I sent an email also. Hope they take it down. Looks like a cute healthy baby. I hope she has the best life can give. The mother did the right thing so I hope she is not found and hassled.
    I agree. This is so wrong.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16,705
    Two things I noticed on their website that might be applicable in this case:
    http://www.njsafehaven.org/protocols.html

    Consult County Prosecutor immediately if the infant appears abused or neglected.
    In addition, the State Police also assist DYFS with its search of listings of missing children to ensure that the infant was not reported "missing."
    ====

    I'm sure NJ takes this very seriously and there has to be a very good reason for putting this baby out there.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    20,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Taximom View Post
    Two things I noticed on their website that might be applicable in this case:
    http://www.njsafehaven.org/protocols.html

    Consult County Prosecutor immediately if the infant appears abused or neglected.
    In addition, the State Police also assist DYFS with its search of listings of missing children to ensure that the infant was not reported "missing."
    ====

    I'm sure NJ takes this very seriously and there has to be a very good reason for putting this baby out there.
    Oh wow. I wouldn;t have even thought of that and it makes sense.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    Thanks for the link Taximom. Well the child was surrendered in April, it's past the 3 weeks to see if it's a missing baby.
    On the other exclusion of abuse...the baby is listed as 20", 7.5lbs...sounds a newborn and also from the photo. I doubt it's an abuse case. That baby only looks days old if that.
    I don't understand why the photo describes her as a "living victim". Did the baby die after she was was given up?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    20,222
    Is this baby dead? She was left over 3 months ago. The picture is labeled "living victim"
    Looks to me like she may have passed away and that is why they are looking for the parents.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    MD 'burbs of Washington DC
    Posts
    5,926
    NJ safe haven law does have a "no sign of abuse" point... so if the baby showed signs of abuse, perhaps that could be the reason. But logic asks: if that is the case, then why didn't the Doe Network list the reason why identity was being sought outside of the Safe Haven aspect. BUT, then again, this baby is also listed on the State Police site... which really makes one ponder what the heck is up.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    20,222
    Quote Originally Posted by SadieMae View Post
    Thanks for the link Taximom. Well the child was surrendered in April, it's past the 3 weeks to see if it's a missing baby.
    On the other exclusion of abuse...the baby is listed as 20", 7.5lbs...sounds a newborn and also from the photo. I doubt it's an abuse case. That baby only looks days old if that.
    I don't understand why the photo describes her as a "living victim". Did the baby die after she was was given up?
    I am guessing this baby is dead. I would assume it is dead due to something the person who surrendered her did and they want to investigate.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    MD 'burbs of Washington DC
    Posts
    5,926
    Well, NJ state police still list her as "living":

    http://www.state.nj.us/lps/njsp/miss...040019170.html

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    20,222
    well the LE site says she is living so I do not know. But there is defintiely something wrong.

    http://www.state.nj.us/lps/njsp/miss...040019170.html

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    well the LE site says she is living so I do not know. But there is defintiely something wrong.

    http://www.state.nj.us/lps/njsp/miss...040019170.html
    Yes, sure is something wrong. NJ State Police screwed up. If the baby is alive and well, and past the 3 weeks to post her as a possible missing, then she should NOT be on the Doe site.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    MD 'burbs of Washington DC
    Posts
    5,926
    She is not the only baby that NJ lists, that was surrendered under the safe haven law.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,870
    Is it possible she has been kidnapped, possibly by her biological parents? Surely, New Jersey would not just post a Safe Haven baby for the sake of finding the biological parents.....would they? Geesh!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Elphaba View Post
    She is not the only baby that NJ lists, that was surrendered under the safe haven law.
    This is terrible. What's the point of NJ even having Safe Haven? They need to re-instruct LE about Safe Haven. Thses babies should not be posted on any NJ missing person site. They are not victims...they were given up by women who valued the infant's life enough to make sure it was safe and she could go on with her life. If the baby was healthy, there should be NO investigation.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,717
    Victim if the key word here, when the picture was taken, the victim(baby) was living. That does not mean that she is alive today, 3 months later.

    If they are trying to find the mother, I put money that his child was harmed, given up to the Safe Haven Network and then subsequently died. That is one reason why they are looking for the Mother. Just because you give up a Baby to Safe Haven, does not mean that you can conceal any harm you have done to the baby during pregnancy, or after birth, and then try to hide it though the Safe Haven Act.

    The police would not use the word victim lightly.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberLaw View Post
    Victim if the key word here, when the picture was taken, the victim(baby) was living. That does not mean that she is alive today, 3 months later.

    If they are trying to find the mother, I put money that his child was harmed, given up to the Safe Haven Network and then subsequently died. That is one reason why they are looking for the Mother. Just because you give up a Baby to Safe Haven, does not mean that you can conceal any harm you have done to the baby during pregnancy, or after birth, and then try to hide it though the Safe Haven Act.

    The police would not use the word victim lightly.
    But CL...the NJ state police site lists the infant as living. If the photo was taken soon after the baby was surrendered, it sure looks healthy and not abused to me. Unless NJ feels a baby given up under SH is abandoned? But that makes no sense.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    MD 'burbs of Washington DC
    Posts
    5,926
    From what I gather, a hospital only contacts LE if a Safe Haven infant shows signs of abuse. She may look physically fine, but she could easily have drugs in her system, which totally voids any immunity of prosecution and annonymity (sp?) of the mother under the safe haven law. Safe Haven laws protect the infant and protect innocent mothers... but a mother on drugs can't hide behind a safe haven law.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •