Legal Issues

Introduction
A shocking series of cases involving child abuse, hidden pregnancies, and infanticide motivated the fairly recent movement to enact Safe Haven Laws in all fifty states.  Most of these cases were highly publicized in the latter half of the 1990s and the fact that these cases involved newborn infants created a national consensus that is normally difficult to achieve in an America most frequently characterized by its diversity of opinion.  One of these cases involved a teen couple who left their live newborn baby in a hotel dumpster in 1997 another case involved a college woman who gave birth in her sorority house, proceeded to sever the newborn infants umbilical cord with a pair of scissors, and when she later returned from class she discovered the baby was dead and she disposed of it in a nearby dumpster. (Fathers are Parents Too Challenging Safe Haven Laws with Procedural Due Process, 2004, p. 877)  These are merely two illustrations of what was perceived at the close of the twentieth century to have become a pressing national issue.  American parents needed help, the newborn infants needed help, and Texas became the first state to create and enact a type of Safe Haven Law.  The purpose of this type of statutory enactment was to provide safe havens where newborn infants could be dropped off and cared for if the mother or the parents felt unable to properly care for the newborn infant.  The reasoning and the public policy underlying this type of legislation was premised on the notion that these types of horrific cases could be substantially minimized if the state provided assistance to confused or stressed parents in moments of indecision or personal crisis.  As more and more states followed Texas lead, and enacted their own Safe Haven Laws, the goals and the objectives become more broadly declared for instance, it was hoped that these types of laws would reduce child abuse, reduce the abortion rate, and decrease child mortality rates.

Florida enacted its own version of a Safe Haven Law, the precise provisions of each states versions not being uniform, and public officials and Floridians hoped that the noble goals underlying the statutory framework would be realized.  As these state laws are of a very recent origin, however, few empirical studies have been concluded.  Whether the stated goals are being achieved is therefore the subject of much debate.  In order to better explain how Florida is attempting to achieve these worthwhile goals, and the shortcomings that need to be addressed by policy makers in order to make this type of criminal justice reform more viable, this paper will discuss Floridas Safe Haven Law and how this statutory framework is intended to help in reducing child abuse, the abortion rate, and child mortality.

Florida Safe Haven Law  Statutory Framework and Criminal Justice Shortcomings
Floridas Safe Haven Law is fairly limited in scope, mirroring in this respect similar laws in other states, and basically provides that parents may legally leave or otherwise abandon their newborn infants at places that are statutorily designated as safe havens.  What the Florida legislature has sought to accomplish, in effect, is the creation of mechanisms for ensuring the proper care of newborn infants by decriminalizing abandonment.  The rationale, and a quite persuasive one, is that it is far better for the parents, the newborn infant, and society generally if safe havens can be created to accept unwanted infants rather than having them placed in dumpsters or other less than ideal places.  It is important to acknowledge, however, that this decriminalization policy is very narrow in scope indeed, the Florida law provides that the term newborn infant means a child who a licensed physician reasonably believes is approximately 7 days old or younger at the time the child is left (Florida Safe Haven Law 383.50(1)).  There is therefore a very small window opportunity for parents to avail themselves of this legal protection.  Technically, though the reasonable belief language in the statute may provide the physician with some minor discretion that might slightly extend the statutory period, this grant of decriminalization does not extend to the newborn infants eighth day of existence outside the mothers womb.  The implication of this limited time frame may turn out to be that the larger statutory objectives may not be satisfied partially because of the very brief time frame.  Floridas legislators have therefore gambled that a seven day decriminalization period will significantly affect child abuse, abortion, and child mortality.  This will be discussed more fully in the next section of the paper.

In addition to its narrow scope in terms of defining a newborn infant for purposes of a brief decriminalization of child abandonment, the Florida Safe Haven Law creates statutory safe havens that may prove intimidating to parents whom might otherwise take advantage of the laws benefits.  More particularly, the Florida Safe Haven Law designates safe havens to include a hospital, an emergency medical services station, or fire station. (Florida Safe Haven Law 383.50(1))  Superficially, this may seem to be a comprehensive enough designation of safe havens the professionals employed at these sites, to be sure, are highly qualified and probably in the best position to make health decisions and provide immediate care.  A more careful examination, however, also suggests that these same professionals wear standard uniforms and that they are vested with, at the very least, the appearance of state authority.  Parents in turmoil may very well hesitate to avail themselves of these designated safe havens for fear of getting into trouble.  It is true that the Florida Safe Haven Law allows for the parents to remain anonymous, absent cases where there is actual or suspected child abuse or neglect (Florida Safe Haven Law, 2009, section 383.50(5)), but parents making decisions within this narrow seven day window are likely to be suspicious and fearful of highly public places and people in uniform.  Florida might have been better off creating a more expansive designation of safe havens, while still ensuring that individuals with relevant skills would work or reside at those safe havens, and thereby reducing feelings of intimidation and fear.

What emerges from a review of Floridas statutory framework is an extremely limited type of Safe Haven Law.  It is limited in terms of time and in terms of designated safe havens.  The following section of this paper will discuss why this narrow scope may actually operate to defeat the underlying goals that motivated the legislative enactment.

Florida Safe Haven Law  Statutory Objectives and Steps for Reform
There has tended to have been widespread agreement in the media, policymaking circles, and the academic community to the effect that Safe Haven Laws are a good idea.  In Illinois, for instance, one newspaper proudly declared that Since the law was enacted, more than 20 infants have been safely handed over, however more than twice that many have been left elsewhere to die. Consequently, activists are stepping up their efforts to raise awareness about the safe haven law. HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod5014529902(Teen Doing Part, 2006, p. 1)  In Maryland, to take but one of many more disappointing examples, both child welfare advocates and state politicians were distraught because

A newborn was found dead in a trash can Sunday night outside the home of his 17-year-old mother in Arnold. It was at least the eighth case of an abandoned infant since Marylands safe-haven law took effect in 2003. Since then, the state Department of Human Resources (DHR) has not documented a single instance of a baby being relinquished under the law, agency spokesman Norris West said.  HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod5011772549(Safe Haven Campaign Hit, 2005, p. B01)

It is fair to conclude from the early results that state Safe Haven Laws have not been nearly as effective as people had desired and hoped.  There is no firm empirical evidence as of yet that conclusively demonstrates that Safe Haven Laws have or can reduce child abuse, abortion, and child mortality.  Part of this lack of real substantive evidence derives from the simple fact that all of these laws are of a fairly recent origin and that empirical research takes time.  Still, despite this concession, the fact remains that there are troubling issues.  First, merely enacting these laws will not ensure that the citizens of any state will be aware of them or that they will understand the rights and the limitations indeed, in virtually every state there are calls for better education efforts with respect to Safe Haven Laws.  Second, as is the case with the Florida Safe Haven Law, very real problems arise from the extraordinarily narrow scope of the statutory decriminalization.  Assuming that Florida citizens are aware of the protection offered and the substantive provisions, the time frame and the designated safe havens are so limited as to provide little time for reflection and feelings of genuine fear and intimidation are likely.  These factors suggest that the very design of the Florida law may actually do very little to address problems related to child abuse, abortion, and child mortality moreover, there are other risk factors for these problems which are probably more compelling imperatives than a limited seven day window of opportunity.

In the final analysis, although well-intentioned, it is likely that the Florida Safe Haven Law will do very little to reduce child abuse, abortion, or child mortality unless it is first amended to make the decriminalization opportunity more user-friendly and also more pervasively publicized and explained to the entire population of Florida.