Giving up your newborn...

nitengale

Need a shoulder?
Joined
Nov 6, 2000
Posts
11,323
TIME's question: Do laws that let women abandon their infants protect babies or encourage parents to desert them?

What's the law in your state or part of the world? Are you in favor of this law? Should there be an age limit?

I'm curious.


SOURCE

IN Case you can't connect to the link..

The baby now named Tessa Leavitt was born in a motel bathtub on the night of June 18, 2005. Her mother cleaned her, breast-fed her and cut the umbilical cord herself. The next day, the young Hispanic woman swaddled the infant in a white towel and took her to Fire Station 15 in Whittier, Calif., where she rang the doorbell and told the firefighters, "I want to give up my baby." When the paramedics arrived 30 minutes later, she put the child on their gurney and left. "It was eerie," recalls firefighter Kevin Cull. "The ambulance went off in one direction, and she just crossed the street and walked off in the other direction."

Tessa's birth mom gave up her child under California's Safely Surrendered Baby Law, which lets parents avoid prosecution for abandoning their newborns if they leave the infants with staff members of emergency rooms or other approved places, including fire stations. Since 1999, 47 states have adopted similar laws permitting children to be relinquished, with age limits ranging from 3 days old in 16 states to 1 year in Missouri and North Dakota. In California the baby must be under 72 hours old, but a bill recently passed by the legislature would extend the deadline to 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has not stated a position on the measure, has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto it. The longer grace period has renewed debate over whether such leniency actually protects children or encourages parents to desert them.

The record doesn't help answer that question. Since 2001, when California enacted its safe-haven law, more than 150 newborns there have been surrendered safely, but at least 160 have been illegally abandoned. The experience has been similar in other states. In the five years before 2001, when North Carolina began allowing the surrender of infants up to a week old, there were 10 known cases of babies who were illegally abandoned and died. From 2001 to '04, nine infants were illegally abandoned and died, while five or six were given up under the safe-haven law. Illinois, which this summer extended its safe-surrender deadline from three days to seven, has had 27 official relinquishments since 2001, but 44 babies were simply abandoned, 20 of whom died.

Opponents of safe-haven laws say these statistics prove the statutes don't work and may even increase the numbers of children who are given away. "These laws are persuading women who wouldn't have abandoned their babies in any form to do so," says Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Even some people who favor legal surrender of newborns are uncomfortable with expanding the law's reach to month-old babies. Los Angeles County board supervisor Don Knabe has lobbied Schwarzenegger to leave California's three-day law intact. He says pushing parents to make an early decision ensures that unwanted infants get the care and medical attention they need, and dissuades parents from abusing a baby and then waiting for the bruises to fade before giving up the infant. "If someone waits 30 days to surrender a baby, there is no way to determine if that baby suffered any harm during that time," he says.

But advocates for longer amnesty periods say it's important to provide an alternative for parents who try to keep their newborns but become dangerously overwhelmed. "If the baby's being abused, don't we want to save that baby too?" says Dawn Geras of Save Abandoned Babies in Chicago. Alberto Torrico, the state assemblyman who sponsored California's 30-day extension, and Donne Trotter, a state senator who pushed the later deadline in Illinois, agree. They argue that parents should have time to decide if they are fit. "The reality of raising a baby really dawns on you once you get it home," Torrico says.

Still, the main impetus for drafting surrender statutes was dealing with brand-new moms who would not hesitate to leave their babies in Dumpsters. "They don't look at the baby as a human being," says Debbe Magnusen, founder of Project Cuddle, a national hotline to rescue unwanted babies, who has helped mothers ranging in age from their teens to their 30s. "It's a tumor or an object or a problem." Spreading the word about the existence of surrender laws has been hard. The details of California's are supposed to be taught in sex-ed classes and publicly advertised. But with no state funding available, it's up to local governments and private foundations like Magnusen's to promote the law.

Somehow Tessa's birth mother found out about it. And giving up her baby gave the child a chance at a good life, at least in the eyes of Donna Leavitt, who with her husband Rob ended up adopting the girl: "I can't help but think that the safe-surrender sign at the fire station helped lead Tessa to us." The Leavitts would love for their daughter to meet her birth mom. But in most cases that is unlikely, since the law allows surrendering parents to be anonymous. "Many of these mothers do not like their babies," says Magnusen. "We're not asking them to love the baby, just not to kill it." In California, they may soon have more time to make that decision.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty deep question.

My initial reaction was that it protects the children, but that may be a little shallow.
 
nitengale said:
TIME's question: Do laws that let women abandon their infants protect babies or encourage parents to desert them?

What's the law in your state or part of the world? Are you in favor of this law? Should there be an age limit?

I'm curious.


It encourages them to not abandon them in trashcans.
 
I am for whatever is in the best interest of the baby.

The ER of the hospital I was working at in Alabama was desginated a "safe zone." All the mother had to do was bring the baby, say she couldn't care/provide for it, and there would be no repercussions.
 
It isn't deserting the baby if the mother hands the baby into the care of a hospital or fire station. She is not ready/willing/able to be a mother. She may be immature, have mental health issues, or be drug addicted. Whatever the reason, she is handing her child to safety, and there are people all over the country longing to be parents to that child. It is, I think, a responsible act. I would so much rather be raised by parents who love me, want me, and are ready to care for me then remain in the care of a mother who cannot care for me.

Every child a wanted child - this means after birth as well.
 
NaughtyLil1 said:
I am for whatever is in the best interest of the baby.

The ER of the hospital I was working at in Alabama was desginated a "safe zone." All the mother had to do was bring the baby, say she couldn't care/provide for it, and there would be no repercussions.


I agree. We have a 'safe haven' zone here as well. I just wonder if there should be some sort of a limit (age) and if there was, where would all the disobedient two-year-olds end up?
 
Ohio has the law where you can drop your baby off at a hospital or fire station. But I do not know what the time limits for it are.

I say if it even saves ONE baby from the dumpster it's a good thing. I don't think such laws would persuade someone who wasn't inclined to give away their child to do so. I think it's an option for a desparate woman.
 
crazybbwgirl said:
I say if it even saves ONE baby from the dumpster it's a good thing. I don't think such laws would persuade someone who wasn't inclined to give away their child to do so. I think it's an option for a desparate woman.

I agree. I never even thought of age concerns until this article.
 
On one hand the idea of abandoning a newborn is just plain wrong, it doesn't matter if it is a safe haven or not. When one chooses to have unprotected sex he/she should own up to all its responsibilities.

However, if safe havens prevent babies from dying in the streets or garbage bins, what can you say?


BTW, NY has safe haven laws.
 
LotusDreamer said:
On one hand the idea of abandoning a newborn is just plain wrong, it doesn't matter if it is a safe haven or not. When one chooses to have unprotected sex he/she should own up to all its responsibilities.

However, if safe havens prevent babies from dying in the streets or garbage bins, what can you say?
BTW, NY has safe haven laws.

Lot's of women don't "choose" to have unprotected sex...
 
LotusDreamer said:
On one hand the idea of abandoning a newborn is just plain wrong, it doesn't matter if it is a safe haven or not. When one chooses to have unprotected sex he/she should own up to all its responsibilities.

However, if safe havens prevent babies from dying in the streets or garbage bins, what can you say?


BTW, NY has safe haven laws.
So you would rather have a woman keep a child that she resents, does not want, and abuses?
Owning up to those responsibilities would be giving up your child to a safe haven.

Things are not as simple as you are making it seem.
 
NaughtyLil1 said:
I am for whatever is in the best interest of the baby.

The ER of the hospital I was working at in Alabama was desginated a "safe zone." All the mother had to do was bring the baby, say she couldn't care/provide for it, and there would be no repercussions.
Yep intrest of the baby first and formost!


crazybbwgirl said:
Ohio has the law where you can drop your baby off at a hospital or fire station. But I do not know what the time limits for it are.

I say if it even saves ONE baby from the dumpster it's a good thing. I don't think such laws would persuade someone who wasn't inclined to give away their child to do so. I think it's an option for a desparate woman.
Such a shame that some women are in such a desprate state, at least they can do what is best for their little babys.
 
luxey313 said:
So you would rather have a woman keep a child that she resents, does not want, and abuses?
Owning up to those responsibilities would be giving up your child to a safe haven.

Things are not as simple as you are making it seem.


Of course not, Luxey. I said the idea is repugnant, not irresponsible; having unprotected sex and not considering the consequences is irresponsible.

That is only reason I say safe haven laws are needed. The last thing I'd want is a baby to suffer because his parents feel he is a burden.
 
you can't force someone to want their child...and an unwilling mother is an awful thing to inflict upon a child.
 
dolf said:
you can't force someone to want their child...and an unwilling mother is an awful thing to inflict upon a child.
There are luckly many adoptive mothers out there who want them!
 
marksgirl said:
There are luckly many adoptive mothers out there who want them!
yup.

also, before adoption was an easy option, infantacide was very, VERY common.
 
It's a heartbreaking concept, but a necessary one. Why punish the child for the mistakes of the parents?
 
crazybbwgirl said:
This thread is making me sad...
Look on the bright side then, these children are placed in homes where they are loved and wanted!
 
LotusDreamer said:
On one hand the idea of abandoning a newborn is just plain wrong, it doesn't matter if it is a safe haven or not. When one chooses to have unprotected sex he/she should own up to all its responsibilities.

However, if safe havens prevent babies from dying in the streets or garbage bins, what can you say?


BTW, NY has safe haven laws.

Sometimes giving up the child is the responsible thing to do. The mere idea of doing so is not "just plain wrong" in the real world.
 
Dear Marksgirl,

I'm sorry I got you pregnant. Please don't give up our baby. I will take care of both of you, I swear.

~Philly
 
nitengale said:
I agree. We have a 'safe haven' zone here as well. I just wonder if there should be some sort of a limit (age) and if there was, where would all the disobedient two-year-olds end up?

If I remember correctly, it was outlined for infants only. Of course, this was about six years ago when the program was new and they may have expanded it to cover all children.

The babies are particularly vulnerable, but I would hate to see the younger children left behind. All children, regardless of what aqe, deserve a good environment.
 
marksgirl said:
Look on the bright side then, these children are placed in homes where they are loved and wanted!

Oh - I agree. Just sad that some people are that scared and alone in the world.

On a brighter note - I guess it's too late to give up my 21 year old? She's been driving me crazy lately... :rolleyes:
 
NaughtyLil1 said:
If I remember correctly, it was outlined for infants only. Of course, this was about six years ago when the program was new and they may have expanded it to cover all children.

The babies are particularly vulnerable, but I would hate to see the younger children left behind. All children, regardless of what aqe, deserve a good environment.

I agree. My question is, would extending the age limit to drop off babies, foster the potential to see a rise in babies dropped off past the "few days old" age? No matter the age or law, I still believe we have far too many babies 'dumped' in unusual places. So why are these safe havens not working 100% of the time?
 
Adrenaline said:
Sometimes giving up the child is the responsible thing to do. The mere idea of doing so is not "just plain wrong" in the real world.


I think explained my position in post #13.

LotusDreamer: On one hand the idea of abandoning a newborn is just plain wrong...


crazybbwgirl : Lot's of women don't "choose" to have unprotected sex...

I know, that is why I said safe havens are needed.
 
Back
Top