Here is an interesting development from the New Hampshire Legislature. A House Bill just passed concerning "Safe Havens". It gives the right to to parents to drop their child off at a hospital or a church within 7 days of its birth, and if they do not express an intent to return for the child, it is the responsibilty of this "safe haven" to care for the child. In addition, the child's parent or parents are not required to reveal personally identifiable information when doing so. What's more, the same bill repeals another abandonment statute, which used to say:
460:28 Abandonment by Wife. – If any wife or mother shall separate herself from her husband without cause, or from her children, she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The fine, if any, shall be applied in the discretion of the court to the benefit of the deserted husband or children or both.
Consequently, a mother (or father) may now abandon a child with impunity at a "safe haven" without giving any information about themselves and the responsibility for the child then rests with the person to whom the child was handed. To fail to care for the child under the said regulations would be a misdemeanor.
This creates quite a twisted scheme. It is lawful for a mother to relinquish care over her child, but it is a crime for someone working at a safe haven to do the same thing. In effect, the worker at a safe haven is under a greater obligation, according to our astute politicians, to be responsible for the welfare of a child than the mother herself. If our church secretry was left with a newborn child she would not have the same option of driving it over to the next church to relinquish her responsibility over the child. Only the parent has the "right" to do this. The net effect is that our church secretary potentially has a greater liability towards the welfare of a child than the mother who bore it! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bash.gif" alt="bash" title="bash[/img]
Living in a crooked and perverse generation,[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/weep.gif" alt="weep" title="weep[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]If our church secretry was left with a newborn child she would not have the same option of driving it over to the next church to relinquish her responsibility over the child. Only the parent has the "right" to do this.
How about if the church secretary adopts the child within seven days of the birth of the child, may she then as the baby's mother drop the child off at the next church down the street?
Seriously, are you sure you have all the facts? If so, why not move to Delaware, the home of tax free shopping?![img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/flatcat.gif" alt="flatcat" title="flatcat[/img]
That reminds me ... I should have expected a rationally challenged legislature when Ron pointed out to me some time ago that our very motto is a false dillema! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]BTW - We have tax free shopping AND no income tax.
No income tax! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/mad.gif" alt="mad" title="mad[/img] Yea, but your state's slogan is an either / or fallacy![img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thankyou.gif" alt="thankyou" title="thankyou[/img]
