Counter Report: A Discovery Institute Rebuke of New York City Adoption Institute Report on Safe Have

Background

Arguably, the movement to create new options for women in crisis at risk of unsafely abandoning their babies began in Seattle, Washington, in 1997 when city officials convened a Blue Ribbon task force to suggest new approaches to the problem. The core recommendation was that women be provided anonymity and freedom from being prosecuted for child abandonment if they took their newborns, unharmed, to a designated safe place.

Since 1997, several localities instituted programs and 42 states have passed some sort of law that is meant to create a lifesaving option for babies. Notwithstanding the rapid and unprecedented acceptance by state legislators of this idea, some critics continue to oppose such laws or to seek to change such laws in ways that would eviscerate them.

The most prominent recent action by opponents of these laws was the publication, on March 9, 2003, of a report by a New York City based institute, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. ² The Donaldson report, less balanced than a monograph issued in 2003 by the Child Welfare League of America, received widespread attention by the media, essentially claiming that Safe Haven laws are failing.

It seems appropriate, therefore, for a Seattle-based institute to examine the claims made by the New York City-based group. This brief comment is based on a more detailed review, with citations, that will be released shortly.

The Executive Summary of the report from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, which has received substantial media attention since its release March 9, 2003, levels three different sorts of charges against "Safe Haven" laws. Donaldson claims there are "indications" these new laws lead to unintended consequences, lists four supposed shortcomings and suggests five features that should be in any Safe Haven statute.

Seven unintended consequences?

Claim # 1. The laws encourage "women to conceal pregnancies, then abandon infants who otherwise would have been placed in adoptions through established legal procedures or would have been raised by biological parents or relatives."

Fact # 1. There is no reliable research data about women who have used Safe Haven relinquishment procedures and no way to know whether babies saved through these laws would have been killed or found dead, raised by the mother herself or relatives or placed for adoption.

Claim # 2. The laws create "the opportunity for upset family members, disgruntled boyfriends, or others who have no legal rights, to abandon babies without the birth mothers' consent."

Fact # 2. No such "opportunity" has been taken advantage of to date. Not a single media report has said that a baby has been taken to a Safe Haven without the baby's mother consenting.

Claim # 3. Safe Haven laws induce "abandonment by women who otherwise would not have done so because it seems 'easier' than receiving parenting counseling or making an adoption plan."

Fact # 3. There is no reliable research data about women who have used Safe Haven relinquishment and what their motives may be.

Claim # 4. The laws deprive "biological fathers of their legal right to care for their sons or daughters even if they have the desire and personal resources to do so."

Fact # 4. According to media reports, at least some biological fathers have known about the laws and have participated with the mothers of babies in regard to their newborn infants. Some of these situations have been tragic, as in Virginia, where a father and mother left a baby in Delaware and the baby died, or in Wisconsin, where a father refused to follow the mother's request to take the baby to a Safe Haven and abandoned the baby to die. Some situations have been heart-warming, as was the case with the CT father who took his premature baby to a hospital in MA, thus saving the baby's life.

Claim # 5. Safe Haven laws ensure "that the children who are abandoned can never learn their genealogical or medical histories, even when the consequences for their health are dire."

Fact # 5. No "consequences for their health" could be as "dire" as death, even without genealogical or medical histories. However, some of the Safe Haven laws stipulate ways that biological parents can provide this kind of non-identifying information.

Claim # 6. The laws "preclude the possibility of personal contact and/or the exchange of medical information between birth parents and children in the future."

Fact # 6. Already, there have been relinquishments under Safe Haven laws that make such contacts or exchanges possible, as is obvious from the story in PEOPLE Magazine about the Texas couple who have adopted two babies relinquished by one mother. That mother knows their names and where they live and could establish contact, if and when she wished.

Claim # 7. The laws send "a signal, especially to young people, that they do not have to assume responsibility for their actions and that deserting one's children is acceptable."

Fact # 7. The laws do send a signal, especially to young people, that rather than kill or unsafely abandon their babies, they can save their lives by using Safe Haven relinquishment. The laws also show, as in New York, that many young people will, because of Safe Haven laws, use conventional adoption procedures to relinquish their children, if they feel unable or unwilling to be parents at this time.

Four missing elements in Safe Haven laws?

Fact # 1. Supporters of Safe Haven laws have always supported the idea of sound, scientifically-based research on the causes of infant abandonment, while recognizing the practical difficulty in mounting such research given the anonymous nature of most abandonments.

Recommendation # 2. There should be education of "students, teachers, parents, doctors, counselors and clergy about how to identify concealed pregnancies, and how to help affected teenagers and women."

Fact # 2. In New York City, where Donaldson's office is located, there is an organization that has been doing public education on a very meager budget. That organization is AMT Children of Hope Foundation, headed by Tim Jaccard. The Donaldson report did not even mention the existence of Jaccard's Foundation or his educational activities.

Recommendation # 3. There should be provision of "confidential counseling to at-risk pregnant teens and women about prenatal care and safe alternatives for their babies, such as care by other biological family members or adoption, when they cannot or do not want to parent."

Fact # 3. Again, Donaldson failed to include in its report the data released by Tim Jaccard about his success in counseling, with 17 of 27 persons who ultimately made decisions about babies in 2002 using conventional adoption procedures.

Recommendation # 4. "...[E]ducational materials and support services [should be] available that would help mothers, fathers, and other biological relatives raise infants when they wish to do so."

Fact # 4. Such materials are readily available now through hundreds of social service and human service agencies. Again, in New York City, Tim Jaccard distributes such materials as part of his Foundation's work but Donaldson declined to report on any aspect of the Foundation's activities in the same city.

Five minimal provisions that should be in any Safe Haven statute?

Suggestion # 1. "Ensure that only people with explicit permission and legal rights are leaving a child."

Fact # 1. As Donaldson knows, ensuring that a person leaving a child at a designated Safe Haven or with an approved person would require something like showing identification and providing written verification that the mother of the child has deputized that person to use the Safe Haven relinquishment procedures. Removing anonymity in such a fashion would make Safe Haven laws unlikely to pass state legislatures and very unlikely to be utilized by persons desiring anonymity.

Suggestion # 2. "Offer counseling and post-natal care to women who bring infants to designated sites and provide information to them about their options, including parenting by family members and adoption through established legal procedures."

Fact # 2. Supporters of sound Safe Haven laws already are recommending this approach and have in fact written such procedures into the laws enacted by some states.

Suggestion # 3. "Require that strong efforts be made to obtain information about the child, including basic medical and genetic family histories, along with contact information for emergency use."

Fact # 3. Already, Safe Haven supporters have been successful in getting some states to incorporate ways of providing basic medical and genetic family history information. However, providing "contact information" would require trusting state bureaucrats with confidential, identifying information, and as a recent situation in Florida where more than 14,000 people who adopted were contacted by a researcher without proper permission having been granted proves, bureaucrats cannot be trusted to keep confidential information private.

Suggestion # 4. "Create mechanisms for notifying birth fathers about abandonments and provide opportunities for them to assert their legal rights."

Fact # 4. Safe Haven advocates support the use of, or are seeking to enact, laws creating Putative Father Registries so that men who may believe that their offspring have been relinquished under Safe Haven procedures can have their day in court. As for notifying birth fathers, the experience with the so-called "Scarlet Letter law" in Florida, a law which has been challenged and which is being rewritten by the legislature, shows that such approaches deny women basic rights in choosing how to make plans regarding their pregnancies.

Suggestion # 5. "Allow birth parents to regain custody of their infants within a specified time period and, if they do not, quickly terminate parental rights so that adoption can be expedited."

Fact # 5.This has been the policy of Safe Haven advocates ever since the first law, the Baby Moses law, was passed in Texas in 1999.

Conclusion

The Donaldson report makes 16 claims, recommendations or suggestions. In each and every instance, the comments are either something that Safe Haven laws provide or that Safe Haven advocates support, or the ideas contradict the very idea of anonymous relinquishments. In several instances, Donaldson is either unaware of or chose not to include in its report positive activities taking place under the leadership of the AMT Children of Hope Foundation and Tim Jaccard in New York City, where Donaldson is located.

The Donaldson report contains nothing new that is workable and studiously ignores the positive results that have flowed from Safe Haven laws. Such a report is neither sound research nor acceptable journalism.

For additional information, contact William Pierce at 202-293-7979. Pierce also serves as the Executive Director of the USA Committee for IAVAAN (International Association of Voluntary Adoption Agencies & NGOs), which has a Safe Haven Project. Pierce was Assistant Executive Director of the Child Welfare League in 1980 when he stepped down to be the Founding President & CEO of the National Council For Adoption.

© 2003