<P> But in 2007, an Ohio Court of Common Pleas ruled that the entire Ohio Deserted Child Act was void for violating the Supreme Court's rule - making authority . In re Baby Boy Doe, 145 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 2007 - Ohio - 7244 . There, the parent had left the child at the hospital, expressing an intent to leave the child and to have the child adopted . The parent never contacted the hospital or the state agency afterward . The non-surrendering parent's identity and location were not fully known . After being granted temporary custody, the state agency moved for permanent custody, as needed for adoption . The attorney and the guardian ad litem for the child argued that certain statutes of the safe haven act violated the separation of powers doctrine under Art IV, Sec. 5 (B) of the Ohio Constitution . The court agreed, finding that the safe - haven laws' notice and anonymity statutes conflicted with the notice provisions of Juvenile Rule 15 and the due diligence requirements of other court rules . Juv. R. 15 required issuing summons to the parties ordering them to appear before the court . Because the main purpose of the safe - haven law was to keep parents anonymous and immune from prosecution, Juvenile Rule 15 undermined the safe - haven laws' purpose . But the anonymity and notice statutes being procedural, the court rules governed . Because the notice and anonymity statutes could not be reconciled with the remaining safe - haven statutes, the whole safe - haven act was void . The original safe - haven complaint and permanent custody motion were dismissed . The case was not appealed . </P> <P> By 2008, all 50 states had a form of safe - haven law . As of 2013, no one has used the law in Alaska . </P>

Your ems station has been designated a baby safe haven