The Maryland Court of Appeals recently ruled that a parent who surrenders a newborn under the Safe Haven Act may still be found to have neglected that child, affecting how child welfare laws are applied in such cases. This decision highlights the complexities of balancing parental rights and child safety in situations where infants are surrendered at designated facilities.
The case, titled In re: B.Cd. & B.Cb., No. 47, September Term, 2025, involved a mother who surrendered her four-day-old twin sons at a hospital in accordance with the Maryland Safe Haven Act. The court's ruling has significant implications for parents, child welfare agencies, and the interpretation of child neglect laws.
The Maryland Safe Haven Act allows parents to surrender unharmed newborns at designated facilities without facing criminal prosecution or civil liability. However, the court found that surrendering a child without a plan for long-term care can place that child at substantial risk of harm, which constitutes neglect under the Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) statute.
Background
The parties involved in this case are A.C., the mother of the twins, and the Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services (the Department). The dispute arose when A.C. surrendered her twins, B.Cd. and B.Cb., at the Baltimore Washington Medical Center on September 16, 2024. The Department took custody of the children and filed CINA petitions, arguing that the mother’s actions constituted neglect.
A.C. participated in the proceedings and contested the neglect finding, arguing that she acted within the Safe Haven Act's guidelines. The juvenile court found that her actions did indeed constitute neglect, leading to an appeal by A.C. to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The Appellate Court affirmed the juvenile court's ruling, prompting A.C. to seek further review from the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The Ruling
The Maryland Court of Appeals, led by Judge Killough, ruled that a parent who surrenders a newborn under the Safe Haven Act can still be found to have neglected that child if there is no legal custodian or plan for long-term care after the surrender. The court stated, "The act of abandoning the child at the designated facility places the child at 'substantial risk of harm,' because without intervention by the local department, there is no one to provide for the child's basic health or welfare needs."
The court also clarified that the immunity provided by the Safe Haven Act does not prevent a finding of neglect under the CINA statute. The court emphasized that the neglect finding allows the juvenile court to intervene and ensure the child's welfare, stating, "The Safe Haven Act’s immunity from 'civil liability' does not bar a CINA neglect finding, which is the non-punitive jurisdictional predicate that allows the juvenile court to adjudicate the child’s case." This ruling was supported by the opinions of Judges Watts and Eaves, who concurred and dissented on certain aspects of the ruling.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for parents who may consider surrendering their newborns under the Safe Haven Act. It establishes that even when a parent follows the Safe Haven guidelines, they may still face legal scrutiny regarding neglect if the child's welfare is not adequately addressed post-surrender. The decision underscores the necessity for child welfare agencies to ensure that proper care and long-term arrangements are made for surrendered children.
Furthermore, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving the intersection of parental rights and child welfare laws. It clarifies that the Safe Haven Act does not provide blanket immunity from neglect findings, which could influence how similar cases are handled in Maryland and potentially in other jurisdictions.
What's Next
A.C. has the option to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it remains unclear whether she will pursue this route. There are no related cases pending that directly address this issue, but the implications of this ruling may prompt further discussions and potential legislative changes regarding the Safe Haven Act and child welfare laws in Maryland.