Strollerderby

Should It Be Legal to Abandon Babies in Safe Places?

The story of a newborn baby who was found on a Newton, Massachusetts doorstep piqued my curiosity about laws concerning abandoned babies. In this particular case, police wished that the woman or parents who abandoned the baby had known about the Massachusetts law that makes it legal to surrender babies at a “safe haven” (hospitals and police or fire stations) in the first seven days of an infant’s life.

This got me to wondering about the pros and cons of legalizing baby abandonment. The overarching concern is clearly the baby’s survival, which is more likely if the child is left in a safe place. But does legalizing baby abandonment mean that desperate mothers will be more likely to leave their newborns, rather than seeking medical attention and going through the process of legal adoption?

Nancy Larraine Hoffman, the legislator who authored New York’s uniquely forgiving abandoned baby laws, recently addressed these issues in an op-ed. Here are the stats she presents about baby abandonment:

Most cases involve a teenager who may be a victim of rape—almost certainly of statutory rape. She may have been in denial about the pregnancy herself, and probably told no one if she did suspect she was pregnant. She is overwhelmed with fear. The best chance to save the baby's life is to show compassion for the mother, regardless of how irresponsibly she acted. Threats to find and punish her will only push other girls away from help and raise the risk that babies will not be found.

This is the thinking behind New York’s Abandoned Infant Protection Act, which makes it legal for a mother to leave a baby in “any safe place.” Hoffman argues that any mother in the position of abandoning her child is likely terrified of authority figures, and will not go to one of the “safe havens” that figure into many state’s abandoned baby laws. But if a woman is assured that she will not be punished, she is likely to place the infant in a safe, populated place.

Hoffman argues that letting these young women off the hook in exchange for saving a baby’s life is a “pretty good trade-off.”

What do you think? Does this law encourage child abandonment or save lives?

Photo: BBC

Related Post:

Elderly Man Rescues Abandoned Baby


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

chyna823 said:

I wonder if there are any stats about the survival rates of abandoned newborns before and after safe haven laws went into effect. I do wonder about their effectiveness--it would probably be more valuable to provide some means for these women/girls to obtain proper medical care before, during, and after the birth as well as adoptionn counseling, under a veil of anonymity.

September 12, 2008 9:43 AM
 

Jean & Mike said:

Hannah,

Here are the Massachusetts stats.

Our law went into effect late Oct. 2004.  

The bill was filed in early May in 2000.  Between the time the bill was filed and enactment there were 13 babies abandoned, 6 died, 4 came very close to death due to exposure and other medical problems, 3 were very similar to safe haven surrenderings -- including a baby that was brought from CT to a MA hospital just over our boarder.

Since our law has passed there have been 6 babies surrendered under the law, and four babies abandoned. Only one was dead when found -- in a garbage truck.

We established a hotline in early 2005 -- they field about a call a day that are mostly info calls.

From that hotline 50 women have been counseled and referred into adoption or parenting plans.

Stats show that our law has not encouraged more abandonments to take place. And 5 of the six Moms gave full family histories, with 4 signing adoption contracts sometime after the baby was left at the safe haven, all 6 gave full medical histories -- including potential congenital backgrounds.

We promote our law through public awareness lead by a 20 year old pop singer/performer who visits radio stations and talks to DJs and talk show hosts about the hotline and web sites.

Here's a link to some of her work.

video.google.com/videoplay

Because of this year old program New England went over 20 months without an abandonment, until this week in Newton. We hope the Mom was heading to a hospital, as one was less then a half mile away, and just beyond a highway next to that neighborhood.

Thanks.

September 12, 2008 10:26 AM
 

Liz said:

I'm definitely not nearly as well-informed as the previous commenter, but when I read stories about newborns drowned in McDonald's restrooms, left to die, etc, and there's any kind of option for a woman to instead hand that baby over to authorities and let them give it a chance to find a loving home and have a future, there's no question in my mind that we should have and promote these laws.

September 12, 2008 10:45 AM
 

Hannah Tennant-Moore said:

Thanks so much for those stats, Jean and Mike!

September 12, 2008 1:09 PM
 

Alice said:

Sfae HAven laws save lives.  I don tunderstand how they would discourage a woman from making an adoption plan.  If she wants someone to adopt the baby she will make a plan not just be lazy and drop the kid off somewhere. Women who abandon babies are often in denial, in danger or very young.  They think they have no other choice.  They dont want anyone to know they even had a baby.  

September 12, 2008 1:54 PM
 

Brett Singer said:

It depends on the location. I can't find the link but in New York, I remember one of the "safe places" was going to be any 7-11. That seems like a horrendous idea. Hospitals, though, OK.

September 12, 2008 1:58 PM
 

km said:

The 7-11, to me at least, initially seemed like a bad idea.  But the more I think about it, it doesn't seem so bad:

a)  If the mom is unsure/frightened/etc. of authority figures, she may be more likely to leave the baby at a 7-11, than say a police station (where she may fear repercussions for leaving the baby, despite the law).

b)  7-11s are open 24/7, and are generally rather busy.  If a baby was left at a 7-11, chances are the baby will be found rather quickly.

c)  7-11 has diapers and coffee--the baby and whoever gets stuck watching it would be all set.

September 12, 2008 5:38 PM
 

Marci said:

Safe Haven laws sound ideal, in theory, but it is my belief that these laws do in fact encourage women who are not ready to parent a way out that does not work in favor of what is best for the child.  Going through a licensed adoption agency, allows the prospective adoptive families to gain all of the health and genetic history of the birth family.  Adoption agencies also provide tremendous support for the birth mother as she goes through this difficult decision.  I understand that most women who do abandon their infants are doing so due to shame, denial, and/or simply wanting to move forward and forget as quickly as possible, but is that really the message we want to send to women who give birth and do not want to parent?  Additionally, issues of early permanency arise with Safe Haven Laws.  So, although it seems sensible to have "safe" locations to abandon an unwanted baby, these laws actually work against private, voluntary infant adoption agencies and put the infant into the public foster care system before finding a permanent home for the infant.  We all know the negatives outcomes of children in foster care and when there are many families waiting to adopt and bring an infant into their home permanently, why do we even consider this as a viable option?  Beats me.

September 15, 2008 1:03 PM

About Hannah Tennant-Moore

Hannah Tennant-Moore is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer whose work has appeared or is forthcoming in Best Buddhist Writing (2008); The Sun; Guantanamo: Inside the Prison, Outside the Law; Tricycle; Turning Wheel (as the winner of the Young Writers Award); and elsewhere.

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage