By Cathy Leeke
South Carolinians should celebrate every life saved through Daniel’s Law.
Recent reports show that South Carolina has already reached a record number of infant surrenders under the law this year. State officials have rightly pointed out that these babies were not abandoned in dangerous circumstances and that greater public awareness of the law is likely contributing to the increase. They have also reminded us that mothers who choose this path are not villains. In many cases, they are acting out of love and concern for their child.
I agree.
Daniel’s Law reflects a pro-life commitment that says every child matters. It provides an essential safety net for parents in crisis and has undoubtedly protected vulnerable infants from harm. South Carolina should continue supporting and promoting this option.
But as we celebrate the lives saved through Daniel’s Law, we should be careful not to assume that higher numbers automatically mean better outcomes.
In fact, the statistic that deserves the most attention is not the number of babies surrendered. It is the fact that state officials report that approximately 98 percent of these surrenders occur when the child is born in a hospital.
That changes the conversation.
Daniel’s Law was created in response to tragic situations where newborns were abandoned and left in danger. A baby surrendered at birth in a hospital is not facing the same immediate threat. That child is already receiving medical care. Nurses, physicians, social workers, and other professionals are already involved.
The question we should ask is simple:
Before a mother makes a permanent decision to surrender her child, has she been fully informed about all of her options?
Too often, the public conversation frames the choice as Daniel’s Law or abandonment.
Those are not the only choices.
A mother can also make a voluntary adoption plan. She can receive counseling. She can choose the family who will raise her child. She can communicate her hopes and dreams for her child’s future. She can preserve medical and family history. She can create a plan for future contact through open adoption.
Most importantly, she can remain in the driver’s seat rather than turning those decisions over entirely to the state.
For decades, adoption was often treated as a complete separation between birth families and adoptive families. Today, that reality has changed. Most modern infant adoptions involve some degree of openness and ongoing connection.
Research and experience have repeatedly shown the benefits of preserving appropriate connections whenever possible. Children often benefit from understanding their origins, knowing their medical history, and having access to answers about their identity. Birth parents frequently find comfort in knowing their child is safe and thriving. Adoptive families benefit from greater honesty, greater understanding, and stronger connections built on trust.
Not every situation can support ongoing contact. Safety must always come first. But whenever appropriate, openness gives children something anonymous surrender cannot: connection.
That is why the state’s celebration of rising Daniel’s Law numbers should be accompanied by another question.
Were these mothers given the opportunity to understand what open adoption and other parenting options could offer them and their child?
We should also be willing to ask a more difficult question. For some women, particularly those struggling with substance use or other complex circumstances, does Daniel’s Law feel like the safer legal option even when it is not the option they truly want? A woman may desire to choose her child’s family. She may want her child to know his or her story. She may want updates, pictures, or even a relationship over time through open adoption. Yet if she believes anonymity offers greater protection from future legal consequences, she may feel pressured to choose a path that closes doors she would otherwise have wanted to keep open. A decision made out of fear is not the same thing as a decision made from a place of informed choice.
The goal should not be steering mothers toward Daniel’s Law, nor should it be steering mothers toward adoption. The goal should be ensuring that every woman understands the full range of options available to her and is free to make an informed decision without fear, pressure, or misunderstanding. If a mother ultimately chooses anonymous surrender, that choice should be respected. But it is worth asking how many mothers would make a different decision if they fully understood that they could choose a family, preserve their child’s history, and maintain an appropriate level of connection in the years ahead.
Many women initially desire privacy and distance following an unexpected or crisis pregnancy. That is understandable. The emotions surrounding placement are profound. Yet adoption professionals and adoptees themselves can testify that what someone wants in the first days after birth is not always what they want years later.
Many birth mothers eventually desire more information, more connection, and more peace regarding the child they placed.
Many adoptees eventually want more answers, more history, and more understanding of the people from whom they came.
Those opportunities become far more difficult when a child enters the world through anonymous surrender.
South Carolina’s adoption laws make those losses even more significant.
While some states have moved toward greater transparency for adult adoptees, South Carolina remains a restrictive state when it comes to access to original birth records and identifying information. Adult adoptees often cannot obtain information about their biological families without parental consent, court involvement, or other legal hurdles. Even when records exist, access may be limited.
That matters because every time we celebrate anonymity, we must also consider what anonymity means for the child decades later.
A newborn cannot tell us what he or she will want at age 18, 25, or 40. But many adult adoptees are telling us. They want answers. They want medical history. They want a more complete understanding of where they came from and who is part of their story.
The child surrendered today is not only a newborn. One day, that child will be an adult trying to understand his or her own story.
In a state where access to biological family information is already limited, we should be especially careful about promoting anonymous surrender without first ensuring that mothers understand options that preserve important information, family history, and potential future connections.
None of this is an argument against Daniel’s Law.
Rather, it is an argument for making sure Daniel’s Law remains what it was intended to be: a safety net, not the only path a mother hears about.
A record number of surrenders should not simply prompt celebration. It should prompt reflection.
If nearly every surrender is occurring in a hospital immediately after birth, South Carolina should ensure that mothers receive comprehensive counseling and information about every available option before making a life-altering decision. We should make certain that women understand their rights, understand the legal consequences of their choices, and understand that they can often participate in selecting a family and preserving connection for their child through adoption.
Every child surrendered under Daniel’s Law is a life worth protecting.
But every one of those situations also represents a mother and child who have been separated.
We should celebrate that the child is safe. We should support the mother with compassion rather than judgment. And we should work toward a system that preserves as much connection, information, and relationship as safely possible.
Saving a life is a tremendous achievement.
But our goal should be more than survival. Our goal should be helping every child, every mother, and every adoptive family begin their story with as much truth, support, dignity, and connection as possible.
