Staff Reports
The Colorado Supreme Court just decided that a statute that says nothing about secrecy actually guarantees secrecy. Call it judicial origami: fold the words until they say what the court thinks they should. The result was a 5–2 ruling that parents who surrender newborns under Colorado’s Safe Haven law are entitled to anonymity — even though the statute does not expressly promise it. That might sound noble. It also raises real questions about separation of powers, child welfare practice, and tribal placement rules.
What the Colorado Supreme Court ruled
Majority view and the dissent
In a 5–2 decision, the majority concluded anonymity can be read into the Safe Haven law because of the law’s structure, related custody statutes, and the goal of encouraging safe surrender. The court argued that forcing parents to reveal their identities would undercut the purpose of the Safe Haven process. The dissent said: nice policy, but not our job. Two justices warned the court was effectively writing new law — something the legislature should do if it wants anonymity spelled out.
Why this matters for counties, kids, and tribes
This is not just a legal puzzle. County social workers rely on birth records and medical files to find relatives or tribal lineage for placement options. With the court closing off that route when a parent properly invokes Safe Haven, counties like Morgan County may face longer placement delays and more bureaucracy. Tribal-placement issues under ICWA add a knotty layer: if officials can’t learn a parent’s identity, how do they determine tribal eligibility or follow federal placement rules without guessing?
Judicial activism dressed as compassion
There’s a fine line between filling a gap and making new policy. The majority crossed it. If lawmakers wanted anonymity, they could have written it. In fact, the legislature just changed the Safe Haven law earlier this year (expanding the surrender window and sending rulemaking to CDHS). So judges stepping in now looks less like careful reading and more like a robe-wearing committee drafting legislative text. If the goal is to encourage safe surrender, sure — clarity helps. But courts should not wear the legislature’s hat and then ask lawmakers to tidy up the mess afterward.
Fix it—legislators and agencies should act, smartly
Here’s the practical fix conservatives should insist on: if Colorado wants parental anonymity, put it in plain language and include sensible exceptions. Lawmakers should add clear provisions about when identity may be disclosed for tribal determinations, child-safety investigations, and bona fide adoption searches. Meanwhile, CDHS rulemaking should provide uniform procedures so counties aren’t left guessing. That keeps the promise of Safe Haven while protecting kids and complying with federal tribal law. The people we elect make law. If elites in black robes want policy changes, they should at least write the bill and run it through the people’s representatives.
