Remember as you read this that it is considered unethical to ask a window to make legal decisions such as selling her home while she is grieving, but mothers are allowed to make such a terminal decision for their child while under extreme stress, without seeing and holding him and allowing for a clear decision. And of course, the child's rights are eroded with no decision or choice on his part.
It clearly indicates the the purpose of the safe haven law is not to save babies from death, but to allow for anonymous abandonment. And of course the father's rights are obliterated.
Extracted from the full case history: In The Matter of Noel Doe, a minor
The novel issues to be resolved in this case involve the scope and applicability of the New Jersey Safe Haven Infant Protection Act , N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.5 to 15.11. The initial question is whether Noel Doe,1 an infant who was delivered and then immediately surrendered by her mother, Jane Doe, in a hospital maternity ward, qualifies as a Safe Haven Baby. The Division of Youth and Family Services (hereinafter “the Division”) filed a petition on January 5, 2010, seeking to terminate the parental rights of John and Jane Doe under the New Jersey Safe Haven Infant Protection Act. Upon careful
consideration of the evidence presented, as well as an analysis of the legislative intent and public policy of the statute, the court finds that Noel Doe, the infant, was properly surrendered under the Safe Haven law. For all the reasons contained in this opinion, the Division’s petition for termination of the parental rights of John and Jane Doe to Noel Doe is granted.
Factual Background
The child, Noel Doe, a girl, was born on December 16, 2009, at South Jersey Regional Medical Center in Vineland, New Jersey. The mother presented herself to the hospital in labor, was admitted to the maternity ward, and gave birth there. The hospital took her name and other identifying information as a delivering mother; however, the documents provided to the court in evidence redact her name or list her as “Unknown, Doe,” as upon delivering her child, Jane told the workers at the hospital that she wished to surrender her baby and requested anonymity. Jane was allowed to leave her baby at the hospital under Safe Haven protection and was discharged on December 17.
A social worker interviewed Jane prior to her discharge from the hospital and recorded the results of the interview on the confidential patient information form. The form indicates that Jane only spoke Spanish, and was provided with information about the Safe Haven law in Spanish. When interviewed by the Spanish speaking social worker, who came on a referral that Jane wished to place the baby for adoption, Jane repeatedly requested complete anonymity. Jane informed the social worker that she
already had one child, and that the father of Noel had disappeared and was not in contact with her. Jane stated that she could not raise another child, especially with no help, and wished to give this child up for adoption. Jane was noted to be sad, but repeatedly requested to give the child up for adoption with complete anonymity and stressed that this was her own decision. Jane requested a discharge letter stating that she had miscarried the baby so she could tell her family that, instead of telling them that she had placed the baby for adoption. The social worker informed her that the hospital could not do this, but the doctor agreed to write her a medical leave letter for six weeks of maternity leave and
to keep the letter very general and vague so as not to divulge the nature of the situation.
Factual Background
The child, Noel Doe, a girl, was born on December 16, 2009, at South Jersey Regional Medical Center in Vineland, New Jersey. The mother presented herself to the hospital in labor, was admitted to the maternity ward, and gave birth there. The hospital took her name and other identifying information as a delivering mother; however, the documents provided to the court in evidence redact her name or list her as “Unknown, Doe,” as upon delivering her child, Jane told the workers at the hospital that she wished to surrender her baby and requested anonymity. Jane was allowed to leave her baby at the hospital under Safe Haven protection and was discharged on December 17.
A social worker interviewed Jane prior to her discharge from the hospital and recorded the results of the interview on the confidential patient information form. The form indicates that Jane only spoke Spanish, and was provided with information about the Safe Haven law in Spanish. When interviewed by the Spanish speaking social worker, who came on a referral that Jane wished to place the baby for adoption, Jane repeatedly requested complete anonymity. Jane informed the social worker that she
to keep the letter very general and vague so as not to divulge the nature of the situation.
[The Safe Haven law is reviewed and a discussion of whether it applies in this case or not.]
The law should not cut off its promise of anonymity and legal immunity at the maternity ward door. An interpretation of the Safe Haven law that limits so strictly the definition of a Safe Haven site to a hospital emergency room discourages mothers giving birth from seeking medical care at an early stage of delivery. This cannot be a desirable public policy goal, especially given that the stated intent of the statute is to preserve the lives of these infants.
The court finds that the New Jersey Legislature, in passing Safe Haven, intended to provide the benefits of safety, anonymity, and immunity from prosecution in circumstances like these, where the mother delivers the baby in a hospital maternity ward, then clearly and unambiguously states her desire to surrender that infant anonymously and the other Safe Haven statutory requirements are met. The court finds that encouraging mothers to give birth in a hospital setting is an overwhelmingly
favorable public policy. Additionally, the court finds that Jane Doe did precisely what the Legislature intended pregnant mothers with unwanted infants to do; she presented herself to the hospital, gave birth to a healthy baby in the hospital, and then clearly and unambiguously stated her desire for Safe Haven protection. To disqualify Jane Doe from these protections after she undertook the very steps at the heart of the spirit of Safe Haven would do a great disservice to the legislative intent.
In finding that Noel Doe and Jane Doe qualify for the protections of the Safe Haven law, the court is satisfied that the Division is under no requirement to notify the surrendering parent of the pending petition to terminate her parental rights. In this case as in, very likely, many Safe Haven cases, there are myriad reasons a mother may request, and indeed very much desire, the complete anonymity provided by Safe Haven. Here, for example, Jane Doe went so far as to request that the hospital provide her with paperwork stating she had a miscarriage, so she could show that to her family. This
makes clear that Jane does not want her family to know that she gave birth to a live, healthy child. Sending notifications to her home that she might share with certain family members, especially given that she is a struggling single mother already, could cause her serious family consequences. Just as the law is extremely careful in terminating parental rights, the law should, when creating an anonymous way for parents to surrender those rights, be extremely careful in reneging on its promise of anonymity and immunity. This court finds that Jane made a knowing and voluntary surrender of her child under the Safe Haven law of the State of New Jersey.
A discussion of the father, John Doe’s, rights is also necessary in this case. Several statutes provide guidance to the court regarding the necessity of service upon an unknown father in a Safe Haven case. N.J.S.A. 9:2-15 states that “[n]o surrender of custody by, nor termination of the parental rights of, one parent shall affect the rights of the other parent; nor may one parent act as the agent or representative of the other parent in the surrender of custody or termination of parental rights.” However, N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(d) indicates that no notice is required of termination of parental rights or adoption proceedings “[i]n any case where, within 120 days of the birth of the child or prior to the date of the preliminary hearing, whichever occurs first, the identity of a birth parent cannot be determined or where the known parent of a child is unable or refuses to identify the other parent, and the court is unable from the other information before the court to identify the other parent.” Further guidance is provided by N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(b)(6), which provides that notice to a potential father of adoption proceedings is not required where the father has not acknowledged paternity within 120 days of the child’s birth. Most notably, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-17(c) states, “[i]n any case where the identity of an absent parent cannot be determined or the known parent of a child is unable or refuses to identify the other parent, and the court is unable from the other information before the court to identify the other parent, service on that parent shall be waived by the court.”
Here, Jane Doe was unwilling to identify the father of her child. She indicated only that he was no longer in contact with her and had not been for some time prior to the birth of Noel. The court is unable, on the evidence before it, to determine who John Doe might actually be. The court further notes that consistent with N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(d) and N.J.S.A. 9:3-45(b)(6), courts should wait the stated 120 day period before signing an order for termination of parental rights in these cases. The court finds that notice to John Doe of the proceedings is not required in this case under the statutory law. However, in Safe Haven cases, where the Division has information regarding the father of the surrendered child and he was not involved in the surrender of the child, the Division is required to serve him with notice of the proceedings. Because the Division has no information regarding his identity and the mother has refused to identify him, in this case the Division is under no duty to serve John Doe with notice.
Safety, anonymity, and legal immunity are the cornerstones of Safe Haven, providing an uncomplicated, safe waynes of Safe Haven, providing an uncomplicated, safe way to surrender an unwanted to child that could otherwise be left in dangerous circumstances. If the focus is to be on allowing for and encouraging the delivery of safe, healthy infants, mothers giving birth should be encouraged, not discouraged, from seeking medical care to deliver their infant, while being allowed to maintain their anonymity. For all the reasons in this opinion, the court grants guardianship of Noel Doe to the Division so that she can obtain permanency
through adoption.
No comments:
Post a Comment