A desperate mother placed her newborn in a baby saver box and walked away, leaving behind a letter as a silent alarm alerted carers that a child had been safely relinquished.
“I love you my child, I am really broken; but I cannot give you the life that you deserve. I plead for your forgiveness. I chose not to abort and you really fought your way to be here, and God will turn your life story into a testimony. You will be the subject of my daily prayer that God will shower you with so much love. I may not physically be a part of your life, but I will be a part, in other ways. I love you my child,” reads part of the message left for the baby boy, who has since been adopted.
This scenario formed part of a three-day hearing before a full bench in the Pretoria high court last week in a landmark case that could shape the future of safe baby relinquishment in South Africa. Judgment was reserved.
At the centre of the case are Baby Savers South Africa and Door of Hope, which operate baby saver boxes — metal compartments built into walls where women can anonymously leave babies knowing they will immediately be rescued and cared for.
The department of social development wants the boxes outlawed, arguing they encourage abandonment and that those operating them should be treated as accessories to the crime of baby dumping.
Door of Hope’s Nadene Grabham told Sunday Times the organisation had received 301 babies through its saver box since April 1999. She and Dr Whitney Rosenberg launched Baby Savers in March 2021, and since then another 580 babies have been safely relinquished through 24 operational stations.
The law should recognise that act for what it is. Not a crime but protecting a life. Criminalising relinquishment risks that caregivers, fearing arrest and prosecution, may resort to unsafe options putting the infant’s lives at risk.
— Nyeleti Baloyi, Lawyers for Human Rights
Expert witness Luke Lamprecht, who filed an affidavit on his research findings on child neglect, abandonment and abuse, told the court his master’s research focused on “the missing infant murders in Johannesburg”. He said baby saver boxes were internationally recognised as a safe practice.
His research found Johannesburg mortuaries receive an average of 20 dead babies a month. Another 20 babies are relinquished at the city’s two academic hospitals, at a time when only five placements were available when surveyed.
Lamprecht also described a case involving a desperate teenage mother who was prevented from leaving hospital without her baby and denied counselling or social services.
Shutting down safe relinquishment services, he said, was “cruel”.
Under current law, both a mother leaving a baby in a saver box and the provider operating the service can be charged with a crime.
The matter has drawn widespread legal interest and could ultimately land before the Constitutional Court. Supporting Baby Savers and Door of Hope are three amicus curiae legal teams: the Centre for Human Rights backed by Lawyers for Human Rights, the Centre for Child Law and the Women’s Legal Centre.
According to Nyeleti Baloyi of Lawyers for Human Rights, the case challenges the Children’s Act to distinguish between unsafe abandonment and safe relinquishment.
“We are seeking relief in the form of legislation that excludes the providers of baby saver boxes from accomplice liability,” she said.
“The law should recognise that act for what it is. Not a crime but protecting a life. Criminalising relinquishment risks that caregivers, fearing arrest and prosecution, may resort to unsafe options putting the infant’s lives at risk.”
Baloyi said the dispute began in 2023 when the department banned baby saver boxes as accessories to crime, refused to re-register Door of Hope and withdrew its funding.
Door of Hope appealed, arguing the boxes were life-saving in a country where two out of three abandoned babies die. That prompted legal groups to intervene to highlight the impact on vulnerable women.
But the department of social development opposed the application, arguing the organisations were advancing an “immoral” practice.
Its lawyers argued the boxes “facilitate and promote the dumping of infants into unattended boxes, hoping that each of every dumped infant would be found alive”.
The department said there was no public benefit in “the dumping of infants” and argued mothers wishing to relinquish babies could notify authorities at hospital, after which “the child-care system would take over”.
“The fact that this did not occur in certain instances was no reason to change the law,” the lawyers argued.
The state also contended anonymous relinquishment deprived children of their identity, names and culture.
Opposing lawyers countered that they were not seeking to decriminalise unsafe abandonment, but to legalise safe, dignified alternatives for mothers in crisis.
Lawyer Ruth Versfeld described baby abandonment as a deeply gendered issue in which women bear the overwhelming burden of punishment and stigma.
“It’s not a neutral occurrence; it’s a gendered crisis where fathers are not subjected to equal sanctions. It fails to acknowledge the trauma and desperation of mothers,” she said.
She argued that banning the boxes punished women for the state’s own failure to provide adequate social support.
The Women’s Legal Centre also highlighted the stigma, desperation and indignity experienced by many women forced to relinquish babies.
The matter was heard by judges Ronel Tolmay, Brenda Neukircher and Nkosingiphile Mazibuko. Judgment is reserved.
For now, the court is being asked to keep Door of Hope’s registration valid until the Constitutional Court has its say.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.