On March 15, 2025, shortly after the February issue of the O.I. Newsletter came out, there was a lengthy article on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal about fire departments in New Mexico installing “baby boxes”—plexiglass containers such as hospitals use to wheel babies into the mother’s room, or back to the nursery or newborn ICU—under the headline, “Saving Babies, One Box at a Time.” The intent of the article was to publicize, raise money to install many more, and make this method of “dropping off” an infant more acceptable. There was no mention of publicizing prenatal care, birth parents’ need for support, jobs, housing, physical and mental health care, or acceptance of reality. The article featured a picture of such a “box.”

I winced when I saw the picture and the headline. I was glad that, as an unmarried mother in 1966, when there were few or no resources to help a single woman (college-educated or not) keep and raise her child, that I did not think of resorting to such a solution as leaving my child in a “box.” I was thankful that I had good medical care during and after my pregnancy. I also had a few supportive friends, and one couple (my former minister and his wife), who were completely supportive and non-judgmental. Few women had that support in those days, and many do not have it now. My parents were not supportive and might have been relieved if I had remained somehow anonymous. I did not have to leave my son somewhere, nor leave him with an adoption agency, because my doctor had an adoptive family waiting, who gave me some information and who raised my son with the knowledge that I would be open to meeting all of them. I was reunited with them 31 years later. I wish it had been much sooner. Open adoptions were pretty much unheard of in 1966, but not illegal in New Mexico, where I did live at that time.

The next day, an even longer article ap- peared in the Journal, about a couple who had adopted a child found in such a box a year ago. The adoptive father is a firefighter where a box had been installed. The adoption is just now final. It is a closed adoption, and there was no real mention of birth parents, the birth mother’s prenatal care or lack thereof; no mention of helping her or of open adoption. There were two photos of the child, who looked a bit young for one year, and can only say “Mama” and “Dada” (not “hi,” “bye-bye,” etc.), and is not walking yet. Perhaps he was premature? They stated that the adoptive father is the “last Martinez” and so the baby will now be “the last Martinez.” Of course, he isn’t genetically a Martinez. Everyone deserves to know their genetic identity, whatever their legal name is. It’s what makes one a human, and a unique genetic being.

What would a birth mother think or feel, seeing her relinquished child’s photo at one year and no mention of her existence at all? The parents apparently want secrecy in adoption, but also the glory of being the savior parents in the paper. What will this child think later on? Will he read the article and wonder who he really is? What about his birth father? Birth fathers also need acceptance of reality and responsibility. Most are not rapists, but scared. The chid will absorb what he/she is told about the birth parents as part of his/her self.

I was fortunate in that I knew about my own body, about contraception (not so easily available in 1966), pregnancy and birth. Some young women still do not. There are still parents, churches, and even schools (or persons on school boards) who seek to keep young people from knowing these things, let alone discussing them in rational ways. Rational discussion concerning relationships is another matter. Many young people hope their relationship will last forever, when, in fact, it will not. This is not even considering incest or rape, including date rape, nor cognitive disabilities, which can interfere with a person’s understanding. Prenatal care is available, but not every young woman knows how to obtain it. She might not even know she is pregnant until she is in labor, and even then, ER personnel (who should know better) might tell her she has “intestinal upset,” as happened in New Mexico a few years ago.

When someone gives birth with no prenatal care, especially if she is not able to adequately support or care for a baby, she experiences trauma. She may be fearful for her own safety as well as the child’s. She may not know whom to turn to for help. In cases of incest or rape, she may be too traumatized to confide in anyone. Such “baby boxes” may seem like an immediate solution, or she may believe the baby is dead. She might even be delusional enough to think the situation is not real, or that no one will ever find out. The proponents of these “boxes” may only be concerned that an infant will be rescued, although since the New Mexico law states that anyone can anonymously drop off an infant up to 90 days of age, there is nothing to prevent birth grandparents, or someone who might have access to the child, thinking they will “rescue” this infant and/or the mother, or save grandparents embarrassment.

The infant, meanwhile, suffers trauma from lack of prenatal health care, losing a mother, and losing original identity. With better care and information, a mother could either find a way to keep her child, or to relinquish in a dignified way, either in an open adoption, or at least with the hope of eventual contact. A child growing up in an “anonymous” relinquishment and adoption, however skilled and loving the adoptive parents might be, is still deprived of his/her original heritage, medical history of birth parents, and contact with biological connections. Is that not also trauma, not knowing who one really is? That used to be the usual policy, even without the baby being anonymously left somewhere. The idea was that, without any knowledge of birth family, the child would just bond with the adoptive family, and all would live “happily ever after,” and no one would ever yearn to know the birth family. The adoptive family, if they even disclosed their adoptive status (which was regarded as optional) would be seen as heroes for “taking this child in.”

Babies are not puppies at the pound, and birth parents are not dogs who will not recall the children they relinquished. A return to shame and guilt and no acknowledgment of terror and grief is not a humane answer.