Mar 02 2009
The Safe Haven Law
Happy Monday!
I came across this article today about an infant abandoned at a hospital in L.A. Click here for the complete story and some video.
This actually reminds me of a topic I have been wanting to touch on regarding the Safe Haven laws many states have. Someone was good enough to leave me a comment regarding adopting one of these abandoned children, and I believe there are some misconceptions out there about what this law means.
A safe haven law, in certain degrees of variation, is designed to encourage parents or guardians struggling with the care of a child to relinquish that child with no consequences. Certain public facilities such as hospitals or fire stations have been identified as places where you can essentially leave a child on the doorstep and walk away. It sounds harsh, but most would rather see a child abandoned safely than abused and neglected at home.
For the most part, I agree with the concept of these safe haven laws. First and foremost, the concern has to be protecting the children. If this keeps them out of an unsafe situation, then that is a win.
What gets a little foggy is what happens to these kids after they are abandoned. Of course they go into foster care, but what about the long term placement of these kids? Many states require that EVERY effort is made to place a child with a biological family member. In the case of this infant in L.A., she is known only as Baby Jane Doe. How does DFACS go about looking for bio family members if they don’t even have a name to start working off of?
Let’s examine this article a little more closely. According to the report, he handed the baby over, asked the employee to care for the child, then ran out the door. We don’t know where the mother is, or if grandparents or siblings are involved, or if any of them even know that the father has even abandoned the child.
Heck, we don’t even know if this man actually was the baby’s father!!!!
For poor Baby Jane Doe, her quagmire is only just beginning. She will not be able to
be adopted until parental rights can be terminated on her biological parents, and that will be very difficult to do it those parents can’t even be identified. Even if they are identified, abandonment usually takes a long time to play out in the court system.
If no one comes forward with more information about this girl, she is destined to be in foster care for a very long time. Chances are that she will only be placed in true foster environments, and not even a legal risk foster-to-adopt home. DFACS will likely not label her as an adoptive candidate until they have more information, which unfortunately could take years. By then, she could become one of those “unadoptable” kids who have aged past cuteness, and destined for a life of group homes till she ages out of the system.
Plus, this takes place in L.A., our 2nd largest metro area in the country, with a DFACS system that is already grossly overworked and overtaxed. California is running extremely low on fiscal resources, and some counties have already cut support for social services, including foster care.
We should be glad that she appears healthy and is safe and in good care. Her immediate needs are being addressed. What I worry for is the limbo she has been thrown in, and I hope it does not last. I hope someone will come forward with some information about this child so resolution can be reached as quickly as possible. Even if it is only a name, it will be a huge start.
Not to sound harsh, but, if I ruled the world, this would be much simpler. If someone abandons a baby (or child) with no name or identification, put the baby’s picture and info on the missing/exploited children website and also compare it to all missing child reports for a set period of time (weeks or months NOT years). At the end of that set period of time (say three months), the biological parents are assumed to forfeit all claim, irrevocably. And the baby can find her own home.
Cute baby, poor thing. What a pity if she can’t find a home where she’s appreciated sooner rather than later. I always think it sad when people give up their children, but much better that than finding them in dumpsters. Thank Heavens “Jane” didn’t meet that fate.
I’ve never thought about what happens to these kids after the fact. We have safe haven laws here too, even still we get the occasional story where a newborn has been left in a dumpster or worse. With all the people that would jump at a chance to parent one of these babies, it’s a shame that the biological parent’s don’t take more steps to get these kids adopted. I never even considered all the red tape and laws that dictate what happens to them.
The Safe Haven Laws as a concept are good. They’re meant to avoid these terrible stories you hear about babies being left to die in dumpsters, etc. But as a former news reporter, I can tell you there are still countless ways these laws are failing. I remember reporting on a baby left at a government office (the Health Department) but was left outside in the cold rather than handed over to someone. Fortunately she was found in time. The parents eventually came forward and said they thought they couldn’t be held accountable as long as they left their baby near a government office. And let’s not forget the recent story of a dad who abandoned his six (I think) older kids (we’re talking toddlers to teens) and I think it was ok because the state he lived in had such vague Safe Haven Laws.
I’m glad the baby’s mother turned up. I had not yet had time to follow up on the story. Whew!
Sheila, thank you for pointing out that discrepancy. In most states with a Safe Haven law, you are required to physically hand the child to an official at those designated sites, and you are required to give some information on the child (such as the all important name). That is the only way to exploit the protection that the law allows to avoid further persecution. Clearly the man in this story violated not only that aspect of the law, but also the time frame which the Safe Haven law can be exercised in the state of California (which the article points out). I am glad that officials are seeking him out to press some kind of charges against him.
I don’t disagree with the concept of the Safe Haven law. As Stephanie points out, it would be much easier to just move on and put the child into a healthy adoptive placement. However, as is so often the case with our bureaucratic system, a law instigated by Congress with good intentions is sometimes lacking in execution. Unfortunately, we are often required to learn by experience. I just hate that it means the innocent lives of children are often at stake.
We must also consider biological families. It would be so easy to say “sorry you lose” to a birth family who leaves a child, but is that fair to extended family members who may not even know of the child’s existence? It is a very tangled web that social services has to unravel whenever they take custody of a child.
My point in writing this article (and I wasn’t clear in making it), was that people who are considering the possibility of adopting a child sometimes thinks that these children are easier to adopt than any other child. That is often not the case. The timeliness of this story was a perfect worst case scenario, had the birth mother not turned up and claimed the child.
Fortunately for that family, she did.
That’s not to say you should be discouraged from a foster-to-adopt placement, but only to know what to expect.
Excellent point, Quadmama.
In many cases, the law is vague.
I wonder if we will be hearing more about these cases as our economy worsens. Will people become that desperate that they will leave their kids? I suppose there would be some hope that the child would be better provided for in the custody of DFACS, but I can’t even fathom what that must feel like to a parent.
I remember reading stories similar to this during the Great Depression. Children were sent away to live with family members or friends, or just left behind. I hope we can do better for our kids today.