Safe-haven laws (also known in some states as " Mosaic Law of Moses ", referring to religious scriptures) are laws in the United States that decriminalized the departure without injury to infants with officially appointed private persons so that the child becomes a state ward. Safe-haven laws usually allow parents to remain unknown in court, often using a number-bracelet system as the only way to connect babies with parents. Some countries treat the safe-haven surrender as dependence or neglect of a child, with a complaint filed for it in a children's court. Parents either by default or answering complaints. Others treat safe-haven surrender as adoption submission, then a waiver of parental rights (see parental responsibilities). Police stations, hospitals, 24-hour convenience stores, Wal Mart, rescue squads, and fire stations are all common locations where safe shelter laws are kept.
Texas was the first state to enact "Baby Moses Law" in 1999, although Safe Place came from Mobile, Alabama after a series of infanticide. The Texas legislation was sponsored by a new member of the Republican Party from the House of Representatives of Texas, Geanie Morrison of Victoria, who was still serving in the room.
Video Safe-haven law
Controversy
Supporters of the safe-haven law argue that the law saves lives by encouraging parents to hand over the baby safely, providing alternatives to abortion, infant assassination, or child neglect. The advocates argue that, since safe-haven laws do not require parents to be under pressure, one parent will use this law to avoid notification to non-surrendered parents. The law has also been criticized for the fact that in some states, safe-haven laws benefit mothers.
Critics also argue that safe-haven laws undermine temporary surrender laws, which apply exclusively to parents who are unsure whether to keep or release their children. Supporters counter by declaring that anonymity is the only way to convince certain parents not to harm their baby, and that benefits outweigh the losses claimed. Fathers' rights groups also criticize how safe-haven laws can keep fathers away from children's lives without their knowledge, let alone approval.
The controversy arose outside the safe-haven law enacted in Nebraska in July 2008: Nebraska's current law was interpreted to define a child as anyone under the age of 18, and result in the desertion of older children from infants, some as old as teenage years. Under the previous legal version, at least 35 children were deployed in Nebraska hospital within a span of four months, at least 5 of them from other US states. The law was amended in November 2008, allowing only babies up to the age of 30 days to surrender.
Maps Safe-haven law
Constitutionality
On January 8, 2006, only one case challenged the constitutionality of the safe haven law. Can not accuse personal dangers, the plaintiff argues that people should know in advance that the State will not help parents hide children from each other. Also, because anonymity frustrates parents who do not give up from the start, and can be used by parents arbitrarily, the law threatens the public in general. The court rejected the case, finding that the alleged loss did not increase to the level required to justify public action. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that safe-haven laws violate the separation of the doctrine of power by avoiding the Supreme Court decision-making authority remains unhandled.
But in 2007, the Ohio Pleas General Court ruled that the entire Ohio Children's Act removed was invalid for violating the authority of the Supreme Court decision-maker. In Re Baby Boy Doe, 145 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 2007-Ohio-7244. There, the parents have left the child in the hospital, declared intention to leave the child and to have the child adopted. Parents never contact the hospital or state institutions afterwards. The identity and location of parents who do not give up is not fully known. Having been granted temporary custody, the state agency moved for permanent custody, as needed for adoption. Lawyers and guardians of litem ads for children argue that certain laws of safe-haven action violate the separation of power doctrine under Art IV, Sec. 5 (B) of the Ohio Constitution. The Court agrees, finding that the law of security notification and anonymity laws is contrary to the provisions of the 15th Rule of Regulation and the due diligence requirements of other court regulations. Juv.R. 15 it is necessary to issue a call to the parties ordering them to appear before the court. Since the primary purpose of safe-haven legislation is to make parents become anonymous and immune from prosecution, Juvenile Rule 15 undermines the purpose of safe-haven legislation. But anonymity and status notifications become procedural, court rules are regulated. Because the notice and anonymity laws can not be reconciled with the remaining safe-haven laws, all safe-haven actions are void. The complaints of the original shelter and the permanent protection movement were dismissed. The case was not appealed.
Current status
In 2008, all 50 states have a safe-haven legal form. In 2013, no one used the law in Alaska.
See also
- The baby hatches
- Children abandon
Note
External links
- The National Safe Haven Alliance lists links to certain country laws regarding safe-haven, including maps with legal summaries for each state.
- Georgia Story (YouTube Video)
- Safe Haven Act
- California Safe Submission for New Baby Law Explained
- Alaska Safe Alaska Public Service Announcement won Emmy nod
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments