Safe-haven Law - Constitutionality

Constitutionality

As of January 8, 2006, only one case had challenged the constitutionality of a safe-haven law. Unable to allege personal harm, the plaintiff argued that the public had to know in advance that the State would not help parents hide children from each other. Also, because anonymity thwarted a non-surrendering parent from the outset, and could be used by any parent arbitrarily, the law threatened the public generally. The court dismissed the case, finding that the alleged harm did not rise to the level needed to justify a public action. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the safe-haven law violated the separation of powers doctrine by circumventing the Supreme Court's rule-making authority remained unaddressed.

But in 2007, an Ohio Court of Common Pleas ruled that the entire Ohio Deserted Child Act was void for violating the Supreme Court's rule-making authority. In re Baby Boy Doe, 145 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 2007-Ohio-7244. There, the mother had left the child at the hospital, expressing an intent to leave the child and to have the child adopted. The mother never contacted the hospital or the state agency afterward. The father's identity and location were not fully known. After being granted temporary custody, the state agency moved for permanent custody, as needed for adoption. The attorney and the guardian ad litem for the child argued that certain statutes of the safe haven act violated the separation of powers doctrine under Art IV, Sec. 5(B) of the Ohio Constitution. The court agreed, finding that the safe-haven laws' notice and anonymity statutes conflicted with the notice provisions of Juvenile Rule 15 and the due diligence requirements of other court rules. Juv.R. 15 required issuing summons to the parties ordering them to appear before the court. Juv.R. 2(Y) made parents parties. Because the main purpose of the safe-haven law was to keep parents anonymous and immune from prosecution, Juvenile Rule 15 undermined the safe-haven laws' purpose. But the anonymity and notice statutes being procedural, the court rules governed. Because the notice and anonymity statutes could not be reconciled with the remaining safe-haven statutes, the whole safe-haven act was void. The original safe-haven complaint and permanent custody motion were dismissed. The case was not appealed.