The Devastating History of Baby Relinquishment
At New York's Foundling Hospital a policewoman turns an abandoned child over to a staff member. Credit - Orlando—In 2016, Monica Kelsey, a Christian anti-abortion activist, debuted an invention allowing for completely anonymous infant surrender: the Safe Haven Baby Box. A relinquishing parent simply opens the door to the device—now at more than 150 hospitals, health care centers, and fire stations across the United States—and places their newborn in the climate-controlled bassinet. When the parent closes the door, the box locks and a silent alarm alerts responders.
Supporters frame baby drop boxes as a beautiful solution for all parties involved—relinquishing parents, infants anonymously surrendered, and families who eventually adopt them. They argue that this innovation protects vulnerable babies from grievous harm, though there is no reliable data to support these assertions. The federal government does not track how frequently babies are surrendered directly to professionals under safe haven laws, which exist in all 50 states, let alone how many babies are left anonymously in drop boxes.
Nevertheless, conservative religious groups position safe havens as an alternative to abortion. During arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that safe haven laws 'take care' of the 'problem' of 'the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy.' This framing ignores evidence that 91% of women who are denied abortion in the U.S. choose parenting over adoption or relinquishment.
How Online Adoption Ads Prey on Pregnant People
Positioning Safe Haven Baby Boxes as a solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy also ignores important historical lessons about the harms caused by anonymous infant relinquishment. Charitable institutions in our country supported this practice on a much larger scale in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the results were devastating.
While the technology they rely on has been updated for the 21st century, Safe Haven Baby Boxes are a new spin on a very old idea, motivated by religious conservatism and societal policing of women's sexuality and reproduction. The earliest mechanisms for anonymous infant surrender debuted thousands of years ago in Europe. Among the first were so-called 'ruota,' or wheel, systems at Catholic-run hospitals for orphans and foundlings in medieval Italy, where turntables were built into outdoor niches. A parent could place a baby on the turntable outside and rotate it indoors without being identified.
Institutions dedicated to the care of so-called "foundlings" and mechanisms like the ruota spread throughout Europe in the medieval and Renaissance periods—especially in Catholic countries that heavily stigmatized extramarital sex—in order to prevent infanticide and care for 'illegitimate' babies surrendered by poor single women seeking to hide the evidence of their supposed sins. Historians now estimate that by the 18th century, as many as one third of babies born in cities in France, Italy, and Spain were abandoned.
The foundling trend didn't reach American shores until the mid-19th century, when industrialization and mass migration brought huge numbers of people into cities like New York and, in turn, created conditions under which infant abandonment flourished. If a poor single woman who came to New York to work in an unstable low-wage job became pregnant out of wedlock, shame, stigma, poverty, lack of childcare options, and the anonymity of city living might lead her to leave her infant on a stoop.
In the 1860s, four different foundling asylums opened in New York City to care for abandoned children. Among them was the Catholic New York Foundling Hospital, founded by the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul in 1869.
That October, Sister Mary Irene Fitzgibbon, with two other nuns, placed a cradle on the stoop of their brownstone in Manhattan to secretly receive 'illegitimate' babies. That very first night, someone left a baby in the cradle on the stoop. By 1871, they had taken in 2,560 foundlings through the cradle, which was moved into the entryway but still hidden from sight to ensure anonymous surrender. The Catholic New York Foundling Hospital, often referred to as simply "the Foundling," was the only New York asylum that allowed for such secrecy.
For decades, the organization received babies in a self-described effort to save their souls and launder the reputations of their poor 'fallen' mothers. In 1880, the charity opened St. Ann's Maternity Hospital, which served unmarried mothers 'seek[ing] shelter and seclusion with hope of preserving character and family reputation,' as the Foundling put it in a biennial report. The newborns would be cared for by the sisters, who baptized them into the Catholic faith. If they lived long enough to become 'run around[s],' the children might be chosen to ride 'baby trains' to go live with new Catholic families in far-flung towns all across the country, a practice that persisted through 1927. Some 30,000 children rode those baby trains.
The Foundling came to participate in the orphan train movement because its Protestant counterpart and progenitor of the social engineering experiment, the New York Children's Aid Society (CAS), was seen by Catholic-run charities as 'an unqualified menace that had caused thousands of Catholic children to lose their religion and thus their only hope for eternal salvation.' By sending toddlers off on baby trains, the Foundling worked to preserve the minority Catholic faith against encroachment by Protestant charities like the CAS, ensuring that Catholic culture would be perpetuated and reproduced across the United States.
Russia Is Trying to 'Erase' Ukrainian Identity in Captured Territories, European Officials Allege
With a secretive system whereby women who 'sinned' by giving birth out of wedlock would be permanently severed from their children, who were then sent to live with new families, the Foundling may have propagated the Catholic faith. But it also harmed the very children it purported to save.
The Foundling's own archives at the New York Historical hold evidence of how the organization's practices, which cut children off from basic forms of self-knowledge and from the possibility of ever reconnecting with their birth families, caused lifelong suffering for some baby train riders. Nestled into folders of correspondence to the Foundling from the 1980s and 1990s are requests from former riders, now elderly, seeking vital information about themselves and their families of origin.
Some riders were hoping for details that would make sense of their medical histories. In 1994, a rider named Sylvia Wolk who was born in 1918, wrote asking for whatever information the charity had on her parents, an urgent request, as she and her brother, Joseph, were 'both in poor health, in their seventies, and under a doctor's care.' Sylvia wrote that she was 'desperately seeking truth before Joseph dies.' After a lifetime apart, Sylvia and her brother had reunited in 1989—and not through the Foundling. Instead, the siblings reconnected after Sylvia's search for her long-lost brother was featured on an episode of the television show Unsolved Mysteries. Joseph died in 1996, likely without ever learning the 'truth' about his ancestry from the Foundling.
Other letters illustrate the frustration riders felt in the charity's withholding of basic details about their lives. Helen Macior, who was born in 1913 and rode a baby train to Illinois in 1915, wrote in a 1994 request form that she was seeking information 'to learn who I am.' The next year, she sent another letter: 'Seven months have elapsed, and nary a word. This in addition to the last five years of correspondence. . . . If there is one thing I strongly believe, every human being is entitled to know from whence they came, be it good or bad.' Yet the Foundling's system was entirely presaged on the idea that some people's origins need to be concealed.
The tension between the Foundling's desire to keep unwed mothers' identities secret and the desire of former baby train riders to know about their origins foreshadows a central conundrum of modern adoption: the difficulty that adoptive children face in accessing information about their birth parents. The nationwide practice of sealing original birth certificates of adoptees and issuing revised documents that list the names of adoptive parents keeps secrecy alive. But that is changing—thanks to the efforts of adopted people and birth parents in recent years, adoptees in 15 states now have the right to access their original birth certificates.
The conservative movement for anonymous infant relinquishment and supporters of Safe Haven Baby Boxes ignore this history and create a system that makes it difficult—if not impossible—for child and parent to ever learn the truth about one another. Babies surreptitiously left in such drop boxes will likely never have accurate birth certificates, and relinquishing parents swiftly lose their parental rights and any chance of legally reclaiming or reconnecting with their children. History has already taught us the harms of withholding self-knowledge and the possibility of reunification. It is past time we learn these lessons.
Kristen Martin is the author of The Sun Won't Come Out Tomorrow: The Dark History of American Orphanhood.
Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IDF fires at suspects who advanced towards them at aid distribution site
The military said it is aware of reports regarding casualties, and the details of the incident are being looked into. The IDF shot at several suspects who advanced towards troops about half a kilometer from the aid distribution site of the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation after initially firing warning shots on Tuesday, the military said. The suspects were seen deviating from the designated access routes at the site. The military said it is aware of reports regarding casualties, and the details of the incident are being looked into. "The civilians arriving at the distribution area are supposed to walk along a designated route until they reach the corridor that leads to the distribution compound. This is intended to keep them away from IDF forces and prevent any danger to our forces," a witness of the incident told The Jerusalem Post. The witness added that the prohibited route is clearly marked, with barbed wire blocking it. The suspects that were shot at "deviated from the permitted route, and several hundred people started running toward IDF forces. They got as close as 200–300 meters," the witness told the Post. "The forces fired toward the people to push them back," the witness confirmed. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry claimed that 24 Palestinians were killed while waiting for aid in Rafah early Tuesday morning, Reuters reported. "We recognize the difficult nature of the situation and advise all civilians to remain in the safe corridor when traveling to our distribution sites," GHF said in a statement. GHF launched its first distribution sites last week in an effort to alleviate widespread hunger amongst Gaza's war-battered population, most of whom have had to abandon their homes to flee fighting. The Foundation's aid plan, which bypasses traditional aid groups, has come under fierce criticism from the United Nations and established charities, which say it does not follow humanitarian principles. The private group, which is endorsed by Israel, said it distributed 21 truckloads of food early Tuesday and that the aid operation was "conducted safely and without incident within the site." The total number of meals distributed to date is approximately 7,039,462 via roughly 107,520 boxes, according to GHF. This is a developing story. Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Rages at Claim War on Harvard Is Revenge for Rejection
Donald Trump blew up on Truth Social over a claim from author Michael Wolff that his crusade against Harvard is personal. Wolff, author of several books about the president, claimed on The Daily Beast Podcast last week that Trump 'didn't get into Harvard' and suggested he's now targeting the university in part because he holds a 'grudge.' 'He needs an enemy,' Wolff said earlier in the podcast. 'That's what makes the show great. The Trump show. He picks fantastic enemies, actually. And Harvard, for all it represents, fits right into the Trump show,' he said. 'Going after Harvard has proved to be an incredibly reliable headline,' he added. 'So he's on the money. So he's done what he set out to do. Dominate headlines.' Trump has gone after the university with gusto, freezing its federal funding, threatening its tax-exempt status and moving to block it from enrolling international students. The president claimed Wolff's story is 'totally FALSE' and insisted he never applied to the Ivy League school. 'Michael Wolff, a Third Rate Reporter, who is laughed at even by the scoundrels of the Fake News, recently stated that the only reason I'm 'beating up' on Harvard, is because I applied there, and didn't get in,' Trump raged on his social media platform Monday. 'That story is totally FALSE, I never applied to Harvard,' Trump continued. 'I graduated from the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania. He is upset because his book about me was a total 'BOMB.' Nobody wanted it, because his 'reporting' and reputation is so bad!' Trump's education has been colored by claims from family members that he was a 'brat' and that his sister 'did his homework for him.' His higher education began at Fordham University in 1964. He studied for two years at the Bronx Catholic private school before transferring to the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce at Penn. He graduated from the Ivy League university with a bachelor's degree in economics in 1968. His late sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, told her niece Mary Trump that she 'drove him around New York City to try to get him into college.' She said he attended Fordham briefly 'and then he got into University of Pennsylvania because he had somebody take his exams.' Those claims were denied by the widow of Joe Shapiro, the man who was said to have taken the test for Trump. The president's father and brother also helped him to get into the school through a connection, The Washington Post reported in 2019. Trump has long boasted of his time at the Wharton school, claiming it was one of the 'hardest school to get into' and that he graduated top of his class, a claim that the evidence suggests is dubious at best. Trump has had a long-running beef with Wolff, who wrote Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House and Siege: Trump Under Fire, among other titles. In February, Trump called Wolff's latest book, All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America, a 'total FAKE JOB, just like the other JUNK he wrote.' 'He called me many times trying to set up a meeting, but I never called him back because I didn't want to give him the credibility of an interview,' Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time. Even before Wolff floated the claim that the president was snubbed by Harvard, speculation ran rampant over the reason for his vendetta. A White House spokesperson shot down the idea that Trump was rejected from the school, telling USA Today last week, the president 'didn't need to apply to an overrated, corrupt institution like Harvard to become a successful businessman and the most transformative President in history.' Trump has accused Harvard of liberal bias and antisemitism, using those claims to justify his offensive. According to Wolff, a running joke in White House circles held that Trump's war on the prestigious school stemmed from the rejection of another Trump: his youngest son, Barron. The narrative apparently made its way to first lady Melania Trump, whose spokesperson issued a statement last Tuesday calling the claim that Barron applied to Harvard 'completely false.' The 19-year-old recently finished his freshman year at New York University, where he studied at its Stern School of Business.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Lives torn apart': Miami activists decry Supreme Court ruling on migrant protections
Reacting to the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport hundreds of thousands of migrants, a coalition of Miami-based activist organizations declared Monday that the campaign to expel their 'neighbors, coworkers, and even lovers' demands a response free of diplomatic restraint. 'I've realized that while we try to be politically correct, lives are being torn apart,' said Tessa Petit, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition. 'We've become a quota. Because they can't meet their deportation targets, they're fabricating charges — illegally— just to satisfy an inhumane drive rooted in racism, xenophobia and white supremacy.' Petit spoke during a press conference at the headquarters of the Family Action Network Movement, where activists condemned Friday's Supreme Court decision to dismantle the so-called CHNV humanitarian parole program, for the initials of the nationalities affected. The program had allowed hundreds of thousands of people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States for two years. The ruling threatens the legal status of more than half a million migrants — many of them now settled in South Florida. Petit and others stressed that protecting migrants serves the national interest, calling on the U.S.-born children of earlier immigrant generations to stand in solidarity. 'To the American people, I say this: It's us now, but your turn will come,' Petit warned. 'If you don't look, speak, or act a certain way, your turn will come. You are allowing precedents that will change your world forever.' Linda Julien, the first Haitian-American elected to the Miami Gardens City Council, denounced what she called the hypocrisy at the heart of U.S. immigration policy. 'We are a nation that sings liberty but whispers restrictions. A nation that demands labor but blocks legal pathways,' she said. 'Enough with the contradictions. Let this moment reflect not just compassion, but consistency.' Haitians are the largest group affected by the CHNV program, with approximately 211,010 beneficiaries by the end of 2024. Initially excluded, Haitians were later included by the Biden administration in response to the country's collapse into violent instability. The goal was twofold: provide humanitarian relief and avert a mass migration crisis in South Florida. Speaking on behalf of the 117,330 Venezuelans also facing deportation in the CHNV ruling, Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, stressed that this is not an abstract policy dispute. 'This is about families. About dignity. About human beings who followed the rules and are now being punished for it,' she said. Ferro pointed out that more than 530,000 CHNV recipients complied with a rigorous vetting process — undergoing background checks and securing U.S.-based sponsors who committed to financially supporting them. For many Venezuelans fleeing the Nicolás Maduro regime—marked by violence, persecution and economic collapse—CHNV was a critical lifeline. 'It was the bridge that reunited parents with children, siblings torn apart by years of trauma, and survivors of authoritarian regimes who finally had a chance to rebuild in safety,' Ferro said. The Supreme Court's ruling, she warned, jeopardizes even those who did everything right. 'This isn't about illegal entries or breaking the law,' she said. 'It targets people who entered legally, passed background checks and were federally approved.' For Ana Sofia Pelaez, the fight for Cuban freedom is deeply personal — woven through generations. It's her grandparents arriving in Miami in the 1960s, her parents' sacrifices, her community's struggle. Today, it's also about over a hundred thousand Cubans facing potential detention and deportation following a ruling that sent shockwaves through immigrant communities nationwide. 'To force Cubans who have applied and received parole to return now would be a moral failure,' said Pelaez, co-founder and executive director of the Miami Freedom Project. 'The island is under a repressive dictatorship, where dissent is punished with imprisonment, torture and exile.' The ruling is viewed by many in the Cuban-American community as a profound betrayal. Cuba remains gripped by crisis after the historic July 11, 2021, protests—the largest anti-government demonstrations in decades—were met with brutal crackdowns, mass arrests and long prison terms. Cuba continues to suffer widespread shortages of food and medicine, a collapsing economy and unrelenting state surveillance. 'The government silences opposition through harassment and brutality,' Pelaez said. 'And economic desperation pushes people to the brink. This is not a place to which anyone should be forcibly returned.'