Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Safe Haven Baby Boxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators debate baby-box bills after emotional testimony; sponsor withdraws one bill and another is tabled for rewrite
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony for two bills to authorize infant safety devices or baby boxes and to clarify confidentiality and timelines for relinquishment. SB360 was withdrawn by its sponsor after a tied table vote and extensive tribal concerns; SB499 was later tabled for further work.
Senators heard extensive, often emotional testimony on two related proposals to expand New Mexico’s Safe Haven for Infants law by authorizing monitored infant-safety devices or baby boxes at 24-hour sites such as fire stations and hospitals.
Senator Gallegos and Senator Padilla described the bills as life-saving measures intended to offer confidential, anonymous options for parents in crisis and to protect infants left in unsafe locations. "This bill really has nothing to do with the boxes. It has everything to do with protecting mom," Monica Kelsey, founder of Safe Haven Baby Boxes, told the committee.
Proponents, including fire officials and some advocacy groups, said baby boxes provide a last-resort, anonymous way to surrender an infant safely and cited three instances in New Mexico where boxes were used and infants survived. John Wickersham, assistant fire chief in Espanola, said the state pilot included ten boxes and a $320,000 pilot appropriation to install one device per county.
Opponents — including tribal officials, social workers, attorneys representing tribes, the ACLU and other advocates — raised legal and cultural concerns. They said the bills risked undermining the Indian Family Protection Act (IFPA) and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by speeding relinquishment, allowing parent designees to surrender infants and shortening the window for tribal notice and reunification. "Changing the language from the infant being left to an infant being relinquished is very concerning," said Donalyn Lorenzo of Pueblo of Acoma, citing legal implications and the need for counseling and tribal protections.
Committee members also questioned technical and legal details: who qualifies as a parent's designee, how a 90-day contact window would interact with tribal processes, whether the word "medical" should appear in device definitions and what liability rules would govern malfunctioning devices. Assistant Fire Chief Wickersham described device features: alarms, temperature regulation, weekly testing, and an industry lease model vendors use. He said devices cost about $15,000 and installation about $10,000, with an annual lease fee of approximately $500.
The committee first considered SB360 (an early draft focused on "infant safety devices"). A motion to table SB360 resulted in a 5-5 tie and failed to pass; the bill’s sponsor subsequently withdrew the legislation and said she would do more work on the proposal and return it in a future session.
Senator Gallegos later presented SB499, a separate but related measure that also would authorize baby boxes and set notification and timeframes. After further testimony and questions — including sustained concerns about tribal notification and the ninety-day timeline for parental contact — the committee voted on a motion to table SB499. The motion to table carried and the bill was tabled for further drafting and consultation.
Committee members and witnesses asked for more work on the bills to ensure clarity on designee definitions, explicit references to tribal enrollment eligibility, clearer timelines that respect tribal processes, and liability and product-safety language for device manufacturers.
The sponsors said they intend to revise the bill text and consult with tribal leaders, CYFD, legal counsel and industry experts before reintroducing legislation.
