I submitted this to another site (guess) but comment is limited compared to commentary we can post here. And this is where I feel I need to comment on it. Read the link, don’t read it, doesn’t matter. I’ll attempt to sum it up.
In North Dakota, we have what is known as a Safe Haven Law. The concept is used in quite a few states, and there are very few that have any problem with it. State’s laws may vary, but the overall concept is the same. In North Dakota the law states that any parent, or agent of parent, may turn over a child under the age of 1 year without facing criminal charges.
Obviously, these laws were prompted by those that couldn’t/wouldn’t take care of their child and just abandoned them in parks, restaurants, Dumpsters, etc. At some point society realized it would be better that a person hand over an infant to authorities than leave it to die. All of society. Well, most of society. But I’ll get back to that.
The laws/limits/ages may vary (not sure who determines the “return” policy on a child), but the laws, or lack thereof, still are law. In this instance, I’m referring to North Dakota law.
From the article, under North Dakota law:
Now, I may not be the brightest fucking bulb in the chandelier, but I have to assume that if children’s services officials are quoting the law, it’s probably legit. That and the fact that it is legit, 2 for 2 is good enough for me at this point, in this case.
This part is a bit interesting.
So they were able to contact the mother. Why didn’t the guy just give her to the mother? No idea. No details. But not really germaine to the rant. Maybe a state prisoner? Maybe a known meth-addled psycho? Maybe the guy is nuts and thinks she’s Satan? Again, doesn’t matter. According to law, he did nothing wrong.
The ER worker summed it up nicely with:
So we have a guy that, for whatever reason, just couldn’t take care of the kid. And he decides that instead of subjecting a human being to years of neglect and indifference, he’d take advantage of a law that would allow him to turn the child over legally so the child can be properly cared for. Once again, no idea what the circumstances were, just working up to what pisses me off.
Keep in mind the above mention of the fucking law that allows this.
First line of article:
Hmmm. I started off right away with a healthy dose of skepticism thinking the author was looking to grab a headline or two. Surely this was some subterfuge to make the article snazzy. There has to be something here that will make sense of it. Surely this has to be some sort of spin.
Then I continued to the second line.
:eek:
Wait. An Asst State’s Attorney, with the power of filing felony charges against people actually said this? I ran my finger over the page thinking someone used some sort of trick ink to goad me. Alas, it was an actual quote. I went to the online link, and found that running my finger over the monitor confirmed that it wasn’t a case of any trickery.
Here’s the capper:
So you’re going to consult with the group that point-blank called your bullshit, to see if you’re going to proceed with charges?
Did you happen to notice the law states children less than a year old are covered? Let me help you out:
Case closed. Right fucking there. The law says 1 year. The infant was punted one day under warranty. Where is the fucking contemplation over filing charges, you fucking half-wit?
I’m glad I have tomorrow off as it allows me time to fire off a shorter, slightly more coherent rant to the Op-Ed pages of every paper in the state. And every Goddamned state agency I can get to. This motherfucker needs to be stripped of his license. I want felons prosecuted, but this fuckwad has proven he’s not up to the challenge.
And to anyone that wants to derail this into the obvious arena, start another thread. This is about Birst, and nobody else.