Parents who surrender their newborns under Colorado’s “safe haven” law are entitled to anonymity and confidentiality in any subsequent adoptive proceedings involving the child, the state Supreme Court ruled on June 8.

Colorado’s law, like its counterparts across the country, is intended to provide new parents with an alternative to abandoning an infant in potentially life-threatening conditions. A parent has 30 days after the child’s birth to deliver the child to a firefighter or to certain medical personnel. The recipients of the child must notify law enforcement and the county’s department of human services within 24 hours. A parent who follows the legal process will not be responsible for child abuse or neglect.

However, after a mother surrendered her child pursuant to the safe haven law, the Morgan County Department of Human Services began looking into her family to see if it could place the child for adoption. A trial judge learned of the investigation and shut it down, reasoning that birth parents have “a right to privacy and anonymity” under the law.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the safe haven law did not say anything about anonymity for parents. But by a 5-2 vote, the justices believed parental anonymity was consistent with the law’s design and intent.

“The legislature intended the Safe Haven Law to serve as a lawful passage for transferring custody outside ordinary proceedings and, correspondingly, without requiring the disclosure of a parent’s identity to a county department or the court,” wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. in the June 8 opinion. “To strip the Safe Haven Law of anonymity and confidentiality would frustrate its purpose.”

Justice William W. Hood III dissented, arguing the “well-intentioned” finding of anonymity did not change the fact that the safe haven law contained no anonymity provision.

“I would rather see us stick to what courts do best and respect the legislature’s choice of language without adding or subtracting words from the statute,” he wrote for himself and Justice Richard L. Gabriel. “I simply submit that the task of weighing the competing considerations is better left to the legislature.”

In the underlying case, a mother gave birth in an ambulance and told medical personnel that she did not want, nor could she care for, the child. She confirmed she wanted to give the newborn up for adoption.

The county took custody of the baby, who was then placed in a foster home. At the same time, a child neglect case proceeded in court.

The county, meanwhile, obtained the child’s birth certificate and learned the mother’s identity. It provided her with notice of the child neglect case and used Google and social media to identify members of her family. The county wrote to at least four family members to explore adoption placements. One of the mother’s relatives indicated she would like to adopt the child.

The county also explored the mother’s potential tribal lineage and it indicated in a court filing that it had a potential adoptive mother through the family.

At that point, District Court Judge Dina M. Christiansen stopped Morgan County in its tracks. She was concerned that the human services department had used confidential medical records to obtain information about the birth mother. Christiansen then took steps to shield the mother’s identity in the case.

Finally, after the county asked that the birth mother receive an appointed attorney, Christiansen denied the request. Not only did the safe haven law lack a provision for appointed counsel, she reasoned, but the law’s framework suggested anonymity and confidentiality were key features for birth parents.

Morgan County appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which agreed to answer for the first time whether parents operating under the safe haven law have the right to anonymity.

Samour, in the majority opinion, noted the law contains “a deliberate buffer” around the parent. The firefighter or medical employee receives the child, who is then turned over to law enforcement before the county finally gets involved. Further, it is possible that a parent might not even have direct contact with the firefighter or medical employee in the first place.

The Morgan County Department of Human Services “seeks to treat this Safe Haven case like all other abandonment proceedings,” Samour wrote. “But the extended months-long timeline inherent in MCDHS’s proposed approach cannot be squared with the legislature’s command for expediency in the Safe Haven Law.”

“Forcing the parent back into the picture” after they have chosen to abandon their child through the state-sanctioned path, he continued, was at odds with the law.

Therefore, “we infer that a parent who properly seeks shelter under the Safe Haven Law’s protective aegis is entitled to anonymity and confidentiality,” Samour concluded.

Hood, in dissent, noted that the safe haven law mentions the confidentiality of certain records but lacks any indication of anonymity for parents. He would have allowed lawmakers to insert such a requirement, should they wish.

Rep. Gretchen Rydin, D-Littleton, who sponsored a bill this year modifying portions of the safe haven law that were not implicated by the appeal, said she did not intend to alter the majority’s finding of anonymity.

“In my reading of the safe haven law, confidentiality and anonymity are foundational to the process, and the ruling reinforces that understanding,” she said. “The upcoming Colorado Department of Human Services rulemaking process will allow stakeholders to consider this ruling alongside other practical concerns and develop clear guidance. If that process identifies a need for additional clarity in statute, I’m open to that.”

Jacque Frenier, director of the Morgan County Department of Human Services, said her office “respects the law and the process and will abide by any and all laws. MCDHS believes the dissent correctly analyzed and applied the law in this case.”

The case is People in the Interest of G.D.M.