Strollerderby

One size does not fit all.  I think the Safe Haven laws might save a few lives.  A child left in a toilet to drown at birth, the toddler neglected to death by drug addicted parents, the child cared for by aged grandparents too sick to mind htem any longer.  But in most states if you can no longer adequately care for your child you can sign them over to DFACs or an adoption agency no matter the age.  If both birth parents consent it is perfectly legal and happens all of the time.  The Safe Haven was to prevent tragedies such as the newborn boy found in a gym bag on a doorstep last winter, frozen to death.  Or the three baby girls also dead of hypothermia abandoned in the backs of trucks in one area over the last few years.  Knowing your family history is a plus.  My youngest child was found on the ground, wrapped in an old cotton blanket in front of a store on a cold winter morning, only a few hours old.  She was lucky to be found in time.  Yes, I would love to know her birth parents but I know in her birth country they had no choice but to do what they did.  Keep her and face financial ruin or jail time.  There is no legal abandonment laws in that country.  Not having a birth history is a shame but having a life is better.  I sometimes feel Bastard Nation prefers abortion to adoption.

Shannon - If someone other than the custodial parent took the baby, the custodial parent can contact the police.  It would probably take the police about 30 seconds to check to see if any babies matching their description had been turned in, and maybe a day or two to confirm their identity.  I really don't think this is something people need to be worried about.

Is there any way to actually see if any babies have been saved by these laws? I would think somewhere you could find how many babies were abandoned unsafely before and after safe haven laws went into effect. (I haven't been able to find this, but maybe someone else has?)

I have found this post very interesting. It really shows that things are often so much more complicated than they seem. I would imagine (although I am in no way saying I know for sure) that the reality lies somewhere in the middle - the safe haven are not a perfect solution, but they are also probably not 100% evil. I would also imagine that the people who enacted these laws did so thinking the best. That if often what happens, people don't look into all the scenarios before putting something in place. (I live in Calif, where we have so many propositions on the ballots that end up this way.)

Shannon - I'm trying to think of plausible scenarios where one parent could drop off their baby, and other parent doesn't notice or take action.  All I can think of is situations like the military, where the other parent is stationed away from their family (except I'm pretty sure that deployed military get video calls back home, so it would still have to be a military parent who does not notice that their child has disappeared).  Were you thinking of other scenarios?

Re: teen parents - there is no way for a grandparent to actually prevent their teenager from going to the police short of keeping them locked up 24/7.  They can pressure them let things stand, but I strongly suspect that any family where that could happen would be able to pressure their teen into giving the child up for adoption in the absence of safe haven laws.

I'm not going to argue that safe haven laws are perfect, or even that they necessarily prevent infant deaths - but I do think that they serve a vital function.  They take the place of closed adoptions, in a time when birth parents can no longer be confidant that records will remain sealed.  And yes, open adoptions are always best for the child, and it must be horrible to have a question mark in your past, and I know how happy my aunt-who-had-been-given-up-for-adoption was when she found my family, and my wife and I are going to inseminate with an identity release donor because we *know* that's best.... But some birth-mothers cannot face the idea of being contacted by their children, and if forced to chose, will abort instead of giving up their children for adoption.  And in those cases, isn't it better for the children to grow into adults who are angry about the missing pieces in their lives, rather than not exist at all?

"Outside of a narrow idea of middle-class life"?  Seriously?  I grew up in an impoverished single-parent family on welfare.  I am aware of the many permutations family and circumstance can take.

There are certainly situations where a mother can be pressured to give up a baby.  I don't think that safe haven laws make that easier.  If an abusive boyfriend can coerce a mother into dropping the baby off, he can certainly coerce her into giving the baby up for adoption.  The same goes for the mother who doesn't tell the father about the baby - she can give the baby up for adoption without telling him just as easily.  

When opening adoption records in Ontario was being debated, there was a woman who said (under condition of anonymity) that if her adult child ever tried to contact her, she would kill herself.  There are women who cannot face being contacted even by adult children - we just don't hear from them very often, because they are desperate to stay anonymous and to forget.  If they have no other choice, they will abort their children, or abandon them in unsafe places.  

I believe that closed adoptions are better than abortions.  We will have to disagree on that point.

If the safe haven laws save one baby, then it's worth it.  Just because no formal study has been done to prove whether or not it works doesn't mean we should abandon it altogether.  By all means, do a formal study!  Shannon, you make some very persuasive arguments but I'm sure you can agree that there is no easy solution to this problem.  You state that you are against closed adoption but that is just your opinion.  There are plenty of people who would disagree with you, which proves my point:  there is no easy solution to this problem.  Also, part of the problem is that each side isn't even fighting the same fight.  One side is advocating for children's rights while the other side is advocating for parents' rights.  Both sides are right, so where do you go from there?  Like anything else, it's a flawed system, but in the end what matters the most is the safety of the child.

True story in Chicago suburbs a few weeks ago: a women walked out of a hospital with her newborn girl and abandoned her in a dumpster the next day (Chicago Tribune 10/10). Some people are just nuts, and safe haven laws will not protect their babies.

"You can argue that you prefer these problems to abortion, but you simply can't argue they are just as good as (badly flawed already) formal adoption protocols."

Then it's a good thing I haven't been arguing that, isn't it?  I don't think safe haven laws are better than formal adoption protocols.  I don't think they should replace formal adoption protocols.  I do think that they cover situations that cannot be covered by formal adoption protocols, because people no longer trust that adoption records will remain sealed, even if they are promised anonymity.

As a birthmother I strongly feel that none of the safe haven laws, adoption protocols, etc. can replace the need for support of birthmothers to help them keep their children when they are backed into a corner with no other option. I was forced to give up my daughter after being fired from my job for being pregnant and unmarried (this was in the 60's when they could do that)only to be told years later by my daughter's afather that if he had known I wanted to keep her that he would have helped me do so. Talk about a crushing knowledge. It devastated me to know that I would have had a choice.

Bottom line: Birth mother's need more support and help so they can keep their children if they want to.

Teri Brown

Adoption Records Handbook

www.CraryPublications.com

"...people no longer trust that adoption records will remain sealed, even if they are promised anonymity."

This is one of those thoughts fixed in some people's minds that there is a legal promise of anonymity.  There is no such thing.  Birth is a public record and there are many ways of obtaining a record of a particular birth, unless, of course, the birth was never recorded, as would be the case, presumably, of a safe-havening.  But there are still ways of finding things out.  

In adoption law, the record is not sealed until an adoption occurs; until that time, the record remains open.  Hence, if the child is never adopted, enters the foster system, the original record is available.  The records are not sealed to protect the mother or father, but to protect the adopting parents.

There is no legally binding promise of anonymity.  

And the argument that privacy should be in play is not valid either.  Privacy concerns interventions from the state...as in the state cannot intervene in a persons sexual reproductive life...cannot force sterilization.  The matter of privacy does not concern kinship.  

Where there is concern for protection from an individual there are already laws in place.  To presumptively apply them to adoptees is discriminatory.

No parent was ever promised anonymnity in adoption. Many, many parents have been *forced* into living without the hope of contact with their children or their children's adoptive families regardless of whether the birth parents, adoptee, and/or adoptive parents wanted this. There's some great postings on various first-parent blogs about the whole mistaken notion of promised anonymnity and how it fits in with adoption policy past and present, and I certainly can't write it up better than Mirah Riben and others have done. Those who are curious, I suggest you Google.

Aside from the basic human right to know your parents' names and other of your own identifying information, my biggest objection to Safe Havens is that they violate laws protecting the rights of biological fathers who may or may not have signed a Putative Father Registry. I can see situations where a mother might feel it's safest for both her and her newborn to keep the child's existence a secret from the man who fathered hir, but I'm also glad that fathers have it better now under the law since situations like Stanley vs. IL in 1972. Those who want more info on that history can read here:

www.mnasap.org/.../Birthfather_MN_Perspective.pdf

Since we're touching on that strange "Adoption Should Substitute for Abortion" argument, my two cents - Abortion's the appropriate option for women who don't want to be pregnant and give birth to a baby. Women who do want to be pregnant and give birth to a baby have the options of parenting or adoption, but you can't put the cart before the horse. Abortion = No baby. Adoption = A baby not raised by you, but lifelong motherhood in all its complicated glory just the same. Contrary to popular belief, adoption doesn't push a mystical re-set button that de-mothers a woman who has had a baby. No one loves having an abortion, but there's no substitute for the woman who finds herself pregnant and not wanting to have a baby.

And folks who default to infanticide aren't the ones dropping newborns off at the Safe Haven stops - they're the ones who are leaving babies to die in dumpsters, bathrooms, alleyways, etc. Sadly, infanticide will continue to exist even in places with widely-publicized Safe Haven laws. Certainly I don't condone infanticide, but neither do I believe Safe Haven laws do much to prevent it.

Personally, I don't like this idea of being able to 'abandon' a child. As a birthmother I cannot imagine doing it. How could a women give birth and noone knows about it?!! I will never understand how that could be, and I had a easy labor!! I was very intentional about placing my birthchild for adoption. I wanted the adoptive parents to know everything, including that I love my birthchild. I know what a child requires, I used to work in childcare for a while, I am not and will never be convinced that taking care of my own child would be any different than that. I know that in the world there are just alot of really selfish people. There are lots of really difficult situations that are hard to understand unless you are in them. This 'safe haven' thing does not seem very 'safe' to me.

Safe haven laws exist to hide the ugliness of poverty more than they exist to protect a child from landing in a dumpster.  Who is most likely to abandon a child at a safe haven?  The person who would otherwise leave it to die?  I don't think so.  I think it's the person who doesn't know or feel empowered to choose another option. But allowing them to abandon their child anonymously keeps plight in the shadows.  We don't have to deal with helping the parent to parent or even to help the parent keep in touch with their child after an adoption.  We can just forget about that parent and "save" a child.  How nice.

I have mixed feelings about Safe Havens because I have had a good amount of direct experience with very desperate people in very desperate life situations, who are terrified 98% of the time and therefore not in the best position to make deliberate, intentional decisions about much of anything, let alone something as emotionally fraught and complicated as an adoption. I'm not going to judge a woman who is so isolated and afraid that she can conceal a pregnancy for nine months, give birth unattended, and then feel her safest option is to take her child to a Safe Haven site for anonymous drop-off. I'm thankful to have spent only a limited time in such a survival-mode headspace myself, and thankful not to have become pregnant during that hard time.

But it's that very level of desperation inherent in the situation that disturbs me so much about Safe Havens. These women and their babies deserve SO MUCH more than a no-questions-asked baby handoff! I do believe that the mothers who utilize Safe Havens are doing the best they can for themselves and their babies under their current circumstances. But why are we content with laws that only allow (if not outright encourage) the type of "Safe Haven" that leaves new mothers in exactly the same condition they were in before they handed off their babies, instead of a situation where these women can receive intervention, counseling, and a much more ethical adoption process for their children?

I'm sure the fire station/hospital/other Safe Haven site employees do what they can to intervene on the mother's behalf when they encounter a Safe Haven situation. I certainly hope they make valiant attempts to engage with her and provide her with care, while still not asking for scary "identifying information". But frankly, the image of a woman in such a state of desperation handing over her baby and disappearing into oblivion haunts me for the sake of that mother as much as the baby who will grow up with no knowledge of his/her origins. That's the way it *has* to be in countries where public abandonment is the only way for parents to ensure their child's acceptance into and orphanage and hopefully then into an adoptive family, but we're supposed to be able to provide better in the U.S.  

Just as I believe a certain level of infanticide will always exist in the U.S., I also believe a certain level of infant abandonment will always exist. For me, the upside of the Safe Haven laws is that terrified parents utilizing them won't be prosecuted for doing what they must feel is the only thing they can to keep their child safe. But there's got to be a better way than this -- there's too much potential for unresolved trauma and unethical adoption practice under these laws.

The bothersome thing about Safe Haven laws to me is that there is no evidence that they reduce infanticide. While I understand that they were designed as a response to high-profile infant abandonments that led to newborn deaths, my experience in the child welfare system is that parents who will leave a new baby somewhere to its fate? Aren't going to look for a fire station.

One example: I had a case a few years ago which turned on the question, Is leaving your 2 week old infant with a friend of your dealer's at a county fair 'neglect' or 'abandonment'? Regardless, this mother did not seek out a fire station because her mind was elsewhere than her baby's welfare.

People do leave their babies someplace and hope for the best; that's a reality of human behavior and seems to be biologically driven. Given that it's going to happen, removing the criminal penalties seems appropriate to me. it shouldn't be a crime to abandon a newborn.

However, the function of Safe Haven laws is to allow abandoning parents to obtain a conditional release from criminal liability, in exchange for the baby' human right to know his/her origins.

Is there another crime where we allow the criminal to trade something that isn't hers for escaping what would otherwise be the consequences of a criminal act? If the potential to get an outcome we find less repellent had been fulfilled by Safe Haven laws, it would be worth discussing whether infant abandonment is a special crime deserving special conditional exceptions, but since they don't work one gets to ask these questions.

I was left at a church, as a preemie, pre-safe-haven law in my home state.  So I guess I stand as some evidence that abandoned babies do survive without the laws.  Is it hard on me not to know anything about my birth family? You bet your behind it is.  I debate over undergoing genetic testing to see what I might be at risk for, and as a Type I diabetic (juvenile diabetes), I am already much higher at risk for a heart attack!  But - well, I kind of wonder what effect it would have had on a birthmother to require that if you give up a baby,  you have to provide that information about yourself and your family.  It strikes me that I'd end up the same - left in the back of a church, anonymously, and potentially at risk (the pastor was called after I was left, so I was quickly found, but it could have worked out worse) - because that's the only option for an anonymous adoption in that case.  Not to mention my birthmother might have been at great risk in doing so, for a variety of reasons, herself. So I probably would be no better off.  But I would like to bet that there are a few babies who've been safely and anonymously left due to Safe Havens that wouldn't have been without them - the risk to the abandoner being too great to take, otherwise.  And if that's so - those babies would be much worse off.  I don't think these folks are wrong, that we need to address the other issues, but I kind of think removing Safe Havens might be the wrong way to do that.

There was some research published in recent years showing that women are *more* likely to place their children for adoption if it can be done openly, especially if some level of ongoing contact is possible. This isn't necessarily relevant to the minority of parents who, for whatever reason, want or feel they need not to be identified with their baby... but it *is* relevant to the argument that more women will opt for abortion if they aren't guaranteed anonymnity in adoption. I've seen that statement only in anti-abortion materials, particularly those circulated by the Family Research Council. I'm not finding it in reputable sources of adoption information like the E.B. Donaldson Institute.

The adoption agency we worked with here in Chicago does provide confidential services for parents who felt a strong need to keep their child's birth a secret, as well as those who do not want to choose their child's adoptive family or maintain contact after placement. Parents are strongly encouraged to consider the possible long-term impact of these decisions on themselves and on their child, but an adoption can be done confidentially within the limits of state laws governing release of identifying information and Putative Fathers Registries. So abandonment really *isn't* the only option for mothers/parents who need their children to be secrets -- at least not in IL. There's ways to conduct the process more safely and with greater attention to the lifelong ramifications of adoption on all parties, even when confidentiality is desired.

IIRC, Shannon, the circumstances of your older daughter's birth closely align with the situations most likely to produce an anonymous Safe Haven hand-off, except that her mother was given the option to contact an adoption agency and took it. I hope this is true for all Safe Haven sites, but I don't know if that is true.

It seems to me that you could decriminalize infant abandonment while still not allowing an anonymous drop off. In other words, mothers could take their children to a fire station, hospital, etc. and be referred for services (even if they have unrelated arrest warrants, etc.) or if their was a drop off, an investigation could take place to attempt to find the birth mother and provide services. It really does say something about how we don't support families in crisis pregnancies but are perfectly willing to take their baby away no questions asked. It seems a little backwards. And I also agree that giving your child up releases you from the responsibility of raising that child, but not from being that child's mother. Unless the mother's life is at risk (a domestic violence situation for example) I see no reason for records to remain sealed from the adoptee.

Anyway, I also have not given this issue a lot of thought. Thanks for helping me to see the complexities of it.