Safe Haven Laws

[StrawWaterBottle]

"Around 50 babies are abandoned each year in the UK, that's one a week. As it is illegal to abandon a baby in the UK, desperate women will often leave them in areas that are cold and unsafe, that is why the UK needs a law like the Safe Haven law that is active in all 50 States in America."

"The Safe Haven law typically allows unharmed children under 3 weeks of age to be surrendered at a fire station, hospital or other designated place with no names taken and no questions asked. This ensures that babies are not abandoned in cold or dangerous conditions.
Whilst this is a highly emotive issue and some will argue that it encourages irresponsibility, this law will not encourage pregnant women to abandon their children, what it will do is protect societies most vulnerable."

The above was taken from the petition to introduce safe haven laws in the U.K.

petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121783

It only got 404 signatures in 2016 but I personally believe that this is a very important issue. From my own experiences I believe we absolutely should introduce these laws in the U.K. But I realise that is just my own opinion so would like to hear others on it, particularly from a feminist point of view.

So do you think we should introduce safe haven laws in the UK? Why/why not?
What kind of parameters would you place on it? Different states have different timescales in which you are allowed to surrender the baby
What feminist issues do you think surround this?
Any other questions, theories/issue you may think of.

I realise it's late and I won't have thought of everything but I think this is a very important issue that I haven't seen discussed before on MN.

22,000 abandoned babies annually prompted the safe haven laws in the US as a means of discouraging frightened teen girls from dumping newborns in bins.
The UK has 16 abandoned babies annually, which is probably why it is not considered an urgent problem. When you include children the numbers jump to over 100.
Having a place supported by law where desperate parents can take their children is a good idea everywhere.

@TehBewilderness

I understand we don't have nearly the same numbers as the US hence why it isn't a pressing issue but I still think it is important.

I also wonder if there would be more babies given to safe havens than are 'dumped in the UK' as I think it would provide a safe out to women who otherwise can not bring themselves to 'dump' the baby but still want to anonymously give it up.

E.g. young girls of overbearing parents who hide their whole pregnancy but can't hide the baby once it's born. They're essentially forced into telling their parents as even adoption takes time and I believe involve the parents of the mother is a minor but safe haven laws would give them the opportunity to give up the baby secretly.

I'm sure their are other examples, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

Can I ask, for those statistic, what is the age where a child goes from being classified as a baby to being a classified as a child?

Thank you for sharing, I completely agree with you. Children shouldn’t be left in unsafe conditions because girls and women are too frightened to tell anyone. Likewise girls and women who are concerned about their of their babies safety should be able to have this option to keep themselves safe.

Safe haven laws make a lot of sense- I'd fo aa far as to include a facilty for the mother of a newborn to have a medical checkup without names being taken.

This is really interesting OP, I think a bit like where the law stands on abortion (when a foetus becomes a baby) there would need to be some deep thinking in when the age 'cut off' is, when a baby cannot be abandoned without consequences.

This would be quite tough in some ways to action but I agree with the principles of it. It's certainly better than the alternative, the US stats are shocking though. Even as a much larger country, teen population etc I find those numbers pretty jaw-dropping.

Abortions aren't as acceptable in America as they are here, so they do need more laws around the problems of unwanted babies.

I do feel extremely sad that so many women want to hide their pregnancies and dump a baby on a cold night, rather than go through the adoption process.
Like you OP I can't really think of many examples, maybe it's sometimes related to conservative religious reasons and women who are abused and frightened. Nonetheless I would fall on the side of yes it's a good law and I wouldn't object to it in the UK.

Safe haven laws make a lot of sense- I'd fo aa far as to include a facilty for the mother of a newborn to have a medical checkup without names being taken.

Good idea.

I think more support without stigma would also be a huge help in terms of prevention.

In the UK there's this idea that if you go to someone and say "I'm not coping. I can't do this." The only people you'll be put in touch with are Social Services - and let's face it, few of us would voluntarily contact them. I remember when dd1 was tiny, she wobbled onto a toy which left her with a small, perfectly round 'suspicious looking' mark on her forehead. The questions I received from professionals were probably warranted as I had PND but i was left with the overwhelming feeling that I was a shit mother and therefore a shit person. There were hundreds of times I thought "i am so alone, I just can't do this anymore". I'd also had a previous abortion i never told my parents about at 21.

I guess my post isn't that relevant as she wasn't newborn and people knew she existed.

This is really interesting OP, thanks for starting this conversation. I agree with you that these kind of Safe Harbour laws would be a good idea in the UK too.

I'm interested in the comment from @OhHolyJesus – "there would need to be some deep thinking in when the age 'cut off' is, when a baby cannot be abandoned without consequences". I don't agree that there should be 'consequences' after a cut off, I don't think? Are there 'consequences' for putting a child up for adoption? (Genuine question – I don't know! If there are, I don't think there should be.) I would tend to view giving up a baby or child as 'like' late-term abortion in the sense that no one will choose it lightly, and anyone who does need to do this will therefore by definition have her own serious reasons for it. Plus forcing someone to continue to parent a child that she can no longer cope with (for whatever reason) will obviously be a horrible experience for the mother but also likely be a terrible experience for the child, and for that reason if she wants to 'give up' the baby or child in a way that's as safe as possible, that should be made possible for her.

What kind of "consequences" would we be talking about for the women or girls giving up their babies after a yet to be determined cutoff point?

I think that if someone can't cope and knows they can't cope then it just makes sense to give them a way to abandon the baby without putting it in immediate danger. The US isn't the only country that provides that option.

Hi @AllCatsAreBeautiful I think I'm exploring my own views on this as I haven't thought about safe haven laws before.

I think a parent who is struggling with a special needs child who is at toddler stage should get support and shouldn't simply be able to abandon a child as that would be neglect. I don't feel it compares to adoption, I think that's entirely different and I wouldn't suggest there should be consequences for that situation.

I don't think you can abandon a child without there being some checks and balances. For context a woman I vaguely know through family who keeps having children and they keep ending up in foster care due to neglect. No one can stop her having children but if she simply dropped off her newborn at the fire station no one could trace her and existing and future children couldn't be monitored.

I think Around made a good point about there being help for the mother at the safe haven and there being some chance to follow up. As the OP says I think 3 weeks sounds reasonable, I'd be concerned if the age went up to 6 months for example, but I really don't know where the cut off age should be, this is what I need to explore as I know mothers who have struggled, I also wonder if it would be just for teenage mothers or older mothers? I don't know, I really need to think and read a bit more.

And I agree with what Ruffle said

I think more support without stigma would also be a huge help in terms of prevention.

To be completely clear I didn't mean consequences in terms of some kind of prosecution or warning for the mother, more as checking on the background and circumstances and being able to offer support and preventing it from happening again (repeat unwanted pregnancy, health checks, checks for abuse etc...and then social services and the police could be involved if something criminal was going on.)

Children given up in those circumstances will never have any access to medical or family history. They may wonder forever about their cultural background.

It is better than being left somewhere unsafe, but not something that should be felt to be consequence free. Children need access to their origins, at least in a basic way.

The US safe haven laws only apply to babies under three weeks of age, presumably because they are designed as an alternative to women dumping their unwanted baby in a bin. Which some women do as an alternative to adoption/abortion.
( )

I don't think they are meant to apply to situations where a mother is finding they can't cope with an older infant who turns out to have special needs, or aren't coping with motherhood generally after they've given birth to a child they thought they wanted initially.

Safe Haven imo shouldn't apply to the latter situations. In those situations other options should be available, eg social services and other suggestions given above.

Yes, there are real disadvantages to someone leaving a baby in that way, so I think the question is, will a law like this prevent more problems than it creates? Is there a better way to make the situation better for those moms and babies? Because not only do you have a baby with no link to the mom, you have a mother, often quite young, and distressed, and in trouble, who is not being helped.

The US has so many of them for a number of reasons, but I think the main one is really lack of social support and medical care. If you are really poor in the US, there are not a lot of choices for you.

I think more support without stigma would also be a huge help in terms of prevention

I agree, this is much more important.

In 17th Century Ireland, the English had managed to colonise the entire country and introduced the concept of illegitimacy and shame for single mothers. This directly resulted in huge numbers of abandoned babies.

This safe haven idea seems to be rooted in dealing with consequences rather than dealing with the causes. Even if a young girl has deeply religious and heartless parents, she would still be less likely to abandon her baby if she knew that she can afford to live independently and bring it up.

Anyone in charge of an unwanted child would be best to hand it in to a safe place, no questions asked. I speak from the heart and the head, and hideous experience.

If someone was in charge of an unwanted, hated dog, of course that dog would be cruelly treated. Of course the owner, or possibly a family member, would be best to have a dog rescue sanctuary where the animal could be left, without being deterred through fear of repercussions. The only thing that matters is a simple way to rescue, and rehome, for the welfare of the animal. Of course children need, and should have, the same no-obstacle rehoming chances as a dog needs .

U.K. has under 1% of the world's population, but ranks third in the world for known live stream child abuse, including use of babies, often with encouragement of mothers . Nobody can know why a baby or child might need urgent rehoming. No system is safeguarding, if it prevents immediate rescue by any complications, delay, questioning, beaurocracy and fear.

"This safe haven idea seems to be rooted in dealing with consequences rather than dealing with the causes. Even if a young girl has deeply religious and heartless parents, she would still be less likely to abandon her baby if she knew that she can afford to live independently and bring it up."

I believe we should absolutely aim to deal with causes but until we live in a perfect world we can not ignore the consequences to and should have ways to mitigate these. Like in a perfect world there will be no DV and we will deal with the causes of it by stopping the abusers but until we find a way to do this we still need to do everything we can to mitigate the consequences of DV by providing safe spaces for women to escape to, counselling ect.

*"Children given up in those circumstances will never have any access to medical or family history. They may wonder forever about their cultural background.

It is better than being left somewhere unsafe, but not something that should be felt to be consequence free. Children need access to their origins, at least in a basic way."*

The medical history is a tricky one as obviously lots of conditions can be/are hereditary, when people in the US drop off babies at safe havens they have the option to provide basic medical history however this is optional.

I think the cultural background thing is a red herring as plenty of BAME children are adopted by white/other race parents and vice versa. Yes it might not be ideal but it is better than a mother who does not want her child being forced to keep it.

However closed adoptions provide the same cut off at the wishes of the birth mother. Basic medical history is noted but this is still basic and not updated post adoption as other medical conditions may come to light in the birth family.

What consequences do you think there should be? I certainly don't think anyone should be penalised for dropping off a baby in a safe place rather than neglecting them if they feel for any reason they don't want/can't handle them.

There was coverage of this in the news a few years ago when they introduced 'baby boxes' in Germany.

www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/10/unitednations-europe-news

I really don't think they are a good idea - women might feel pressurised to leave their child. Who is going to ensure the woman has not been pressurised to give up her child or who is a victim of incest or rape? My impression from news stories over the years is that women normally abandon babies in public spaces where they are likely to be found very quickly. I also think there is a funding issue. If we provide safe havens, then funding is likely to be taken from maternity services. I can see why they exist in the US but we should be concentrating on making sure no pregnant woman feels she has no option but to abandon her child and has access to good ante natal and post natal care.

With ancestry DNA testing so readily available these days I think we will need to move on from the idea that you can give away a baby and not be traced later.

I believe we should absolutely aim to deal with causes but until we live in a perfect world we can not ignore the consequences to and should have ways to mitigate these

Except you are talking about energy into this mitigation instead of putting energy into dealing with the causes.

In the USA particularly, single mothers often have to work two jobs to earn enough money to feed their children, meaning that they neither get to enjoy spending much time with their children or have much of an opportunity to teach them and keep them safe.

I think, if there are any studies comparing countries where babies are abandoned, we would find many more instances of abandonment in countries with very little support for single mothers.

The main issue for foundling children isn’t lack of medical information. It’s the psychological distress of knowing they were abandoned and not knowing anything about their family background and the circumstances of their birth.

This isn’t something we should want to encourage as an alternative to adoption.

@Coyoacan

Energy needs to go into both, I never denied that.

I am talking about this specifically as a U.K. issue in that should we introduce similar safe haven laws here?

As a woman in the U.K. there's little I can do to improve the condition of single mothers in the US as I can't vote ect. I can however look at what systems they have over there and think the safe haven one is a good one and we should adopt it here. That doesn't mean we also shouldn't look to the US and see how they treat single mothers and use it as an example of what not to do here. We should be doing both.

We should be trying to deal with the causes but also accepting that we haven't fully managed this yet so setting up systems to mitigate the consequences until we do. Then once causes are eradicated this will naturally lead to no consequences. That's why we have victim support charities as well as charities set up to prevent people becoming victims in the first place. Both are equally necessary and important even though their aims are different. Once the prevention charities are completely successful the need for the victim support charities will naturally wane until they become obsolete but until they do we shouldn't take them away because there are still people who need them.

I'm not saying we should introduce safe haven laws in the U.K. and then wash our hands of the responsibility to support struggling pregnant women and mothers. I'm saying we should do everything we can to support them but if this support is not enough, until it is, there should be a safe way for women to give up their babies if they really feel like they can't cope. Rather than feeling forced to either dump them or leav them with a neglectful mother (whether wilful or accidental neglect). There is no harm in introducing more options. Doesn't mean we should stop aiming for prevention but until there is Total prevention a way to mitigate consequences must be in effect as well.

@C0RA

It wouldn't be encouraged as an alternative to adoptions in the same was abortion isn't encouraged as an alternative to contraception. It is a fall back whereby is one system fails you there is still another last resort option.