(ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico) – Safe Haven baby boxes, designed for mothers to anonymously leave their newborns at fire stations or emergency facilities, may not be as effective as intended. In New Mexico, officials have interpreted the law to mean that they must track down these mothers, confirm their safety, and inquire about their willingness to care for the baby or if any relatives are interested. This process raises concerns about privacy and the best interests of the child.
Monica Kelsey, founder of Safe Haven Baby Boxes, expressed her disbelief at the situation. She questioned why investigations were necessary when the purpose of these boxes is to provide anonymity for mothers. She also raised valid concerns about the situations these mothers might be facing, such as running away from abusive or drug-addicted relatives.
According to data from the National Safe Haven Alliance, since the first safe haven law was passed in Texas in 1999, over 1,600 babies have been abandoned in the United States, with only about 600 found alive. However, more than 4,500 babies were safely relinquished at these designated locations. These babies typically enter the child welfare system, where they are placed in foster care with the hopes of finding them permanent homes through adoption.
Critics argue that safe haven baby boxes offer only a limited and heartless response to the issue of unwanted pregnancies. They believe that resources should be dedicated to providing comprehensive support to these vulnerable women, rather than encouraging them to simply drop off their babies. Michelle Oberman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, emphasized that it is important to address the underlying issues these women face, such as homelessness, addiction, or mental illness.
Ryan Hanlon, the head of the National Council for Adoption, advocated for respecting the mother’s choice in placing her child for adoption. He cautioned against undermining that decision by attempting to track down the mother or involving relatives without additional information. Hanlon believed that disrupting the mother’s choice may lead to negative outcomes that she sought to prevent.
It is evident that some women, even in states like New Mexico where abortion is unrestricted, view safe haven baby boxes as the best option. They have likely considered their ability to care for the baby themselves and the suitability of any potential relatives. Unfortunately, the current presumption among child welfare professionals favors keeping children with their parents or, if not possible, with other relatives. While this may be appropriate in normal circumstances, it can have disastrous consequences when children experience severe abuse or neglect.
The requirement in New Mexico to determine if relinquished children have Native American ancestry also raises concerns about prioritizing racial heritage over the child’s best interests. While the federal Indian Child Welfare Act mandates efforts to place a foster child within a Native family, tracking down mothers who used these boxes to make such determinations raises privacy concerns and displays a level of arrogance. It begs the question of whether government officials truly know better than the child’s own mother if she or her family can provide a suitable upbringing.
It is ironic that officials who typically support a woman’s right to choose would override a mother’s choice and sacrifice her anonymity, as well as the safety and well-being of her child, to ensure the child remains with relatives. This situation warrants further consideration and a reevaluation of the implementation of safe haven laws to better support women in crisis and protect the best interests of the child.