Infant Safe Haven Law In Action

[LadyTevar]

Link

Baby dropped off at CAMC Women's and Children's

A baby boy was left wrapped in a blanket on a bench outside Charleston Area Medical Center's Women's and Children's Hospital today, Metro 911 dispatchers said.

A security guard found the baby about 6:18 a.m.

Charleston Police Sgt. Aaron James said the African American baby was rolled in a beige blanket and wrapped with a T-shirt.

James said the security guard immediately took the baby to the emergency room.

He said police believe the baby was born away from the hospital and brought to the front entrance and dropped off.

He said the child was found with the placenta and umbilical cord still attached. The baby was 6 pounds and 20 inches long.

Charleston Police Detective J.F. Taylor said the baby looked like he had just been born.

He was found a few feet outside the hospital's main admitting entrance.

The child was not injured, police said.

Officers from the Charleston Police Department are investigating, and state social service workers are expected to step in.

Beth Cook, regional social services program manager for the Department of Health and Human Resources, said Child Protective Services is typically called in to assist authorities in first trying to find a parent or a relative of the newborn.

"That's not to do anything punitive, but to see if there's some way we can assist them so they can raise this child," Cook said. "There are two parents for every child, and sometimes there are grandparents and other interested relatives."

In 2000, lawmakers passed a bill allowing mothers or fathers to drop off an unwanted newborn at a hospital or other health care facility without facing any criminal penalties.

The law came about after a series of high-profile tragedies.

In 1995, a 21-year-old Marshall County college student gave birth to a baby in her parents' home. No one had known she was pregnant. She put the baby in a woodstove and then put the remains in the trunk of a car. She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Cook said the state's "Safe Haven" law aims to prevent such situations. They prevent a parent from being prosecuted if a child is left unharmed at a health care center, a church or other protected facilities outlined in the law.

"To leave a child at a safe place is actually an act of parenting, better than leaving the baby on the side of a highway," Cook said. "It's usually our assumption that we're dealing with someone who does care for the baby.

"Leaving children at hospitals is usually an act of desperation," Cook said. "Often, the problems just seem insurmountable, but if we can find the person, there are things we can do to help them and make it possible to raise this child."

If no relative steps in, the state will move to become the legal guardian and place the baby immediately in a foster home.

They will continue trying to locate parents or relatives.

Cook said this is the first time in several years she can recall a child being abandoned at a public facility in the area.

"It doesn't happen very often," she said.

[Cairber]

So much for 'no questions asked'. And now it's all over the news. And people wonder why these laws are not trusted. Here in PA, a girl left her child at a house next to the hospital and rang the bell after seeing people in the window. The baby was brought to the hospital and now they are charging her and her grandmother (who helped). They CLAIM that, had she brought the baby tot he hospital itself, she would have been left alone. Obviously there was good reason for her to wonder...

[FSTargetDrone]

Isn't the intent for the parent to actually hand the child to someone in the hospital (or fire station, as the case may be). The article says this child was left "on a bench" outside of the hospital. That's a bit different.

I remember seeing something on TV that showed where a parent could essentially place the child in a "drop off" window at a hospital or some such.

[Lagmonster]

So much for 'no questions asked'. And now it's all over the news. And people wonder why these laws are not trusted. Here in PA, a girl left her child at a house next to the hospital and rang the bell after seeing people in the window. The baby was brought to the hospital and now they are charging her and her grandmother (who helped). They CLAIM that, had she brought the baby tot he hospital itself, she would have been left alone. Obviously there was good reason for her to wonder...

What do you mean, 'no questions asked'? I thought the law just saves jackass parents from criminal liability, not guarantees their anonymity?

As for the rest, use fucking birth control or, failing that, get an abortion, or, failing that, give the kid up for proper adoption. This have the kid, then drop it off on a random doorstep and flee into the night bullshit makes me angry as hell.

[Cairber]

PA safe haven law:

What happens to the mother/father?

No information from the parents is needed and no questions will be asked. The person leaving the baby can provide family medical information if they choose or they can take a health history form to fill out later and mail in anonymously. As long as the baby is less than 28 days old and not harmed or abused, they will not get into trouble with the police.

http://www.secretsafe.org/FactSheet.asp

But I can see why people are not trusting this. First, they claim hospitals will have signs for where to leave the baby and they don't. Then you have examples like this where it ends up on the news and the authorities say there is no charges being pressed, but they still want to talk to the family.


I don't agree with abandoning children, but I also don't agree with making these laws and then, at the same time, making it impossible to believe them.

[Cairber]

Well, I just looked into it, and apparently the SC safe haven law says the media must be informed:

Within 48 hours of taking custody, DSS will publish a notice and give a press release to media in the area of the hospital stating the circumstances of the abandonment of the baby.

http://www.musc.edu/catalyst/archive/20 ... 7south.htm

[Cairber]

Isn't the intent for the parent to actually hand the child to someone in the hospital (or fire station, as the case may be). The article says this child was left "on a bench" outside of the hospital. That's a bit different.

I remember seeing something on TV that showed where a parent could essentially place the child in a "drop off" window at a hospital or some such.

They claim this is true, and, at least here in PA, they claim hospitals have signs to show you where to take the child if you don;t want to talk to anyone.

However, this just isn't true. I've made a point to look at ABington, CHestnut Hill, Bryn Mawr, Paoli, and others for these signs (as I have been to a few for prenatal issues and others for LLL meetings) and I have never seen these signs. You'd at least think there would be one at the main door or the maternity door, yet they are not present. (now abington may have changed their tune since the debacle here with a baby not being left at the hospital itself, but I'll soon enough since im schedule there for an ultra sound on monday)

[FSTargetDrone]

They claim this is true, and, at least here in PA, they claim hospitals have signs to show you where to take the child if you don;t want to talk to anyone.

However, this just isn't true. I've made a point to look at ABington, CHestnut Hill, Bryn Mawr, Paoli, and others for these signs (as I have been to a few for prenatal issues and others for LLL meetings) and I have never seen these signs. You'd at least think there would be one at the main door or the maternity door, yet they are not present. (now abington may have changed their tune since the debacle here with a baby not being left at the hospital itself, but I'll soon enough since im schedule there for an ultra sound on monday)

Hm, interesting. I spent my share of time in various hospitals (Bryn Mawr, HUP) driving my uncle around for treatment he needed the first half of this year and I can't say I saw any such signs either.

[Cairber]

I don't the mentality behind dropping a child off somewhere is to "avoid litigation." I think the motivation is to avoid shame and "people knowing." I think safe haven laws really miss this point. And when they do take it into account (example: PA) you have the lack of promised signs and news stories about these babies who have been left. I don't think that encourages women to use these laws.

So, basically, these laws, IMO, put the adoption process at risk for littloe or no gain. (except to give people the ability to say "she could have used safe haven!" when stories about infanticide come up).

This example and the one in PA demonstrate that even those who WANT to use them are scared and skeptical.

Of course I have nothing to back this up and really it's all opinion.

[Kamakazie Sith]

http://www.secretsafe.org/FactSheet.asp

But I can see why people are not trusting this. First, they claim hospitals will have signs for where to leave the baby and they don't. Then you have examples like this where it ends up on the news and the authorities say there is no charges being pressed, but they still want to talk to the family.

The law doesn't say you can leave the child on the doorstep to be found later. That's why these questions are going to be asked.

I don't agree with abandoning children, but I also don't agree with making these laws and then, at the same time, making it impossible to believe them.

I'm not sure what part you think they're contradicting? This story, and the one you provided have situations where people choose to not follow the law.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The law doesn't say you can leave the child on the doorstep to be found later. That's why these questions are going to be asked.

Agreed, this story really is not a good argument against the safe-haven law, as the circumstances are in no way relevant to it. The law says no information is required so long as the baby is given to the proper people. If you leave the baby on a bench and run away, you're not following the law, and of course they're going to ask questions and likely put as much information as possible on the media.

The lack of proper signs, if true, is another issue, but definitely not directly related to this story.

[Cairber]

I was trying to say this story and the Abington one are examples of women scared to believe the laws (thus they ALMOST go inside but then chicken out) They are probably, IMO, motivated by shame and fear of people finding out, and they fear the investigation that will come from leaving them with a person. They fear being in the media (part of the law in SC) and they fear questions. DOes that make sense?

I feel that is they didn't have this fear and if the laws really did protect them from this fear then they would go inside and give the child to someone or put them in the designated basket. But the media, lies in the laws, and lack of things like signs just make them not work.

Which, to me, is just another example that these laws aren't really helping and are poorly designed and put into practice.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The law doesn't say you can leave the child on the doorstep to be found later. That's why these questions are going to be asked.

Agreed, this story really is not a good argument against the safe-haven law, as the circumstances are in no way relevant to it. The law says no information is required so long as the baby is given to the proper people. If you leave the baby on a bench and run away, you're not following the law, and of course they're going to ask questions and likely put as much information as possible on the media.

The lack of proper signs, if true, is another issue, but definitely not directly related to this story.

What I find amazing, and incredibly generous is that they don't plan on filing criminal charges against the person that left a baby outside on a bench sometime before 0618hrs in December. The questions that the public should be raising is why aren't charges being filed against someone that ignored the rules, and placed a child in a potentially dangerous situation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I was trying to say this story and the Abington one are examples of women scared to believe the laws (thus they ALMOST go inside but then chicken out) They are probably, IMO, motivated by shame and fear of people finding out, and they fear the investigation that will come from leaving them with a person. They fear being in the media (part of the law in SC) and they fear questions. DOes that make sense?

It does make sense, and maybe they should do more to educate the public about the proper procedure. However, you seem to have found the FAQ rather easily, and frankly fear and shame isn't an excuse to break the law, or put a child in danger.

I feel that is they didn't have this fear and if the laws really did protect them from this fear then they would go inside and give the child to someone or put them in the designated basket. But the media, lies in the laws, and lack of things like signs just make them not work.

The law is designed to protect the child, and it does give the parents a way out of parenting. A little shame, or whatever is really not a good excuse. I agree the media would be intimidating. I'm not sure what lies you're refering to in the law. The lack of signs is a concern, but is the responsibility of the hospital. They should be held accountable though.

Which, to me, is just another example that these laws aren't really helping and are poorly designed and put into practice.

The law itself sounds like it was designed just fine. It's the hospitals that sound like they aren't doing what needs to be done.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In other countries this system frequently works by having a baby door, sort of like a book drop-box in theory (god that's such a bad example), where a door in the wall large enough for a baby to be put through can be opened and the child placed inside. Opening the door automatically alerts the staff, and the interior is heated. With no cameras around, completely anonymity is possible (as it should be), and such a setup should be mandatory at all public hospitals, I think.

[Stravo]

As I understand it, these laws were crafted to deal with those heartbreaking stories of infant abandonment. People hated hearing about the babies left to die and so this was the ingenious solution. Provide a way for the babies to be left somewhere safe coupled with anonymity as an incentive for desperate parents to leave them there would cut down these heartbreaking incidents of infant death.

But take away the possibility of not being penalized for abandoning your baby then you have neutered the law and cut off the parent's options so that abandoning them is once again the preferred solution.

We have to ask ourselves in this instance, as a society, which do we value more? The life of an infant or punishing a parent. We cannot choose both in these instances. By choosing to make sure they don't get away with it you doom these children to death. By choosing to give the parent a pass and let them leave their children you greatly increase the chance that this child will live.

[LadyTevar]

The law doesn't say you can leave the child on the doorstep to be found later. That's why these questions are going to be asked.

Agreed, this story really is not a good argument against the safe-haven law, as the circumstances are in no way relevant to it. The law says no information is required so long as the baby is given to the proper people. If you leave the baby on a bench and run away, you're not following the law, and of course they're going to ask questions and likely put as much information as possible on the media.

The lack of proper signs, if true, is another issue, but definitely not directly related to this story.

What I find amazing, and incredibly generous is that they don't plan on filing criminal charges against the person that left a baby outside on a bench sometime before 0618hrs in December. The questions that the public should be raising is why aren't charges being filed against someone that ignored the rules, and placed a child in a potentially dangerous situation.

Luckily fro the child, WV has been experiencing unseasonably warm weather, with temps this morning of high 40s-low50s.

I will also point out that WV's Safe Haven law came into effect largely because of the 1995 infant murder mentioned in the main article, that I highlighted.

[Cairber]

In other countries this system frequently works by having a baby door, sort of like a book drop-box in theory (god that's such a bad example), where a door in the wall large enough for a baby to be put through can be opened and the child placed inside. Opening the door automatically alerts the staff, and the interior is heated. With no cameras around, completely anonymity is possible (as it should be), and such a setup should be mandatory at all public hospitals, I think.

Yes, this is what I am getting at (and probably wording poorly). IF true anonymity were present with these laws, they would be used more often and properly.

[LadyTevar]

Today's paper states that the child is in DHHR custody, but they would like to find the mother to make sure she is not in any danger.

What danger? Well... childbirth isn't easy, and there is possibly something very bad going on in the mother's life (abusive parents/boyfriend? drugs?) for her to leave the newborn like that.

I'm expecting my office receive the child's Birth Certificate next week with Women&Children's regular package. I've been curious how Vital Registration handles foundlings since I heard about it.

[Cairber]

There is evidence out there that safe haven laws fail to reach the critical audience of "mothers who would otherwise commit infanticide.":

link

link

link

Instead, many critics say, they simply compromise the adoption process by appealing and being used by mothers who would otherwise have chosen traditional adoption, raise the child themselves, or turn them over to a family member.

This negative effect would seem tolerable if the infanticide numbers fell with the use of these laws. Instead, the evidence seems to say they don't work in the intended way. And, as we see with this example and the one in Abington, even some of those who do utilize them do not do so in a "safe" way. (and, again, these are also probably mothers who would not choose infanticide)

In addition, which is what I have already stated a few times, mothers who would otherwise choose to kill their infants, IMO, are not going to be swayed by laws that do not offer complete anonymity. And even then, some of the studies I have read on this say that still won't appeal and infanticide will continue.

And then when you give anonymity, there seems to be other issues (such as non custodial relatives giving the child up when the mother/father does not want it to happen)


I would be interested to know if the laws The Duchess of Zeon spoke of actually are having an affect on infanticide numbers.

[The Yosemite Bear]

In other countries this system frequently works by having a baby door, sort of like a book drop-box in theory (god that's such a bad example), where a door in the wall large enough for a baby to be put through can be opened and the child placed inside. Opening the door automatically alerts the staff, and the interior is heated. With no cameras around, completely anonymity is possible (as it should be), and such a setup should be mandatory at all public hospitals, I think.

I hear they were going to install one in san francisco.