EXPOSITI. – These are children of unknown fathers and mothers who refuse to be named, entrusted to the care of the community (State and province) in foundling hospitals.
In the Greek world there were two terms: *ekthesis*, which referred to the exposure of a child in a public place so that it might be taken in by others, also called *enchōrios* = "unapproachable," from the vessel in the shape of a pot in which it was ordinarily placed; and *apo ektrōs* = the outright abandonment of the creature without regard for its life.
The Romans, on the other hand, used the word *exponere* to signify the act of abandonment, without regard to the intention of the one exposing the child. Today the term is reserved, as has been said, for children entrusted to special institutions called foundling hospitals. Exposure is therefore something different from the mere abandonment of infancy. The phenomenon of the exposure of offspring is a painful reality that accompanies the fate of humanity itself and historically is confused with abandonment. Some figures in Greek mythology begin their appearance as *expositi* who escaped death, and the very legend of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus, two *expositi*, shows that from the beginning of Roman society exposure was permitted.
In practice and in Roman law, exposure fell under the father’s right of life and death over his children. In Rome there was also a particular place designated for exposing children, the *Forum Olitorium*, where the *columna lactaria* stood; often, however, children were exposed on the banks of the Tiber or at the doors of temples. The exposed child was generally called *alumnus*, at least if he survived.
The legal status of *alumnus* children, although similar to that of slaves, was in itself intermediate between that status and that of the freeborn. Simple exposure was never considered as a loss of patria potestas, so that the exposed child remained legally free; in practice, however, he became the property of whoever took him in. A mitigation of the scourge of exposure was achieved through imperial public charity. But it was above all the Fathers of the Church and the councils that fought the custom of exposure as unnatural, beginning with the early apologists (St. Justin, *I Apol.*, 27: PG 6, 370; Athenagoras, *Leg. pro Christ.*, 35: ibid. 6, 970). The councils established penalties against those guilty of exposing children and issued practical provisions in favor of *expositi* (cf. Council of Vaison, canons 9–10, a. 442; Second Council of Arles, canon 51, a. 452; Mansi, VI, 455, 884). At the same time the Church began the work of rescuing *expositi*.
“We,” says St. Augustine, “through our virgins take in those children whom cruel parents have exposed” (*Epist.* 98: CSEL, XXXIV, p. 527).
The influence of Christian thought made itself felt in legislation. Constantine, departing from the Roman principle of *patria potestas*, with the constitution of April 331 established that whoever took in and maintained an *expositus* could keep him in the status of a son. Through subsequent interventions by Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, we arrive at Justinian, who granted *expositi* complete freedom, even emancipating them from the servile condition into which they might have been born (Cod. Inst., IV, 24; VIII, 51; Law of 529; Nov. 153 [a. 541]). This constitution regulated the legal position of *expositi* down to the appropriation of modern codes.
Later, in order to provide for the salvation of *expositi*, foundling hospitals were founded by ecclesiastics (v.). At first these institutions took in only truly abandoned infants; later, with the introduction of the foundling wheel, they accepted children whose mothers did not wish to raise them, with the guarantee of secrecy. Such an organization was intended solely to provide for the child’s salvation, protecting him from prenatal and postnatal dangers at the hands of his parents. Under special historical conditions, *expositi* were considered legitimate.
All the work on behalf of *expositi* was carried out by religious institutions under the impetus of the Church. It was only during the 18th–19th centuries that national States took over foundling hospitals as well, considering them Church property. New reforms were immediately begun that led to the abolition of the foundling wheel in foundling hospitals, without, however, changing the problem of *expositi*.
At present *expositi* are illegitimate children deposited in foundling hospitals and, by legal fiction, are considered to have unknown parents; children found in a state of real abandonment are assimilated to them.
Civil laws fall into two groups with regard to *expositi*: one group of legislations does not admit them (Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavian countries, England, U.S.A., Japan…), but every mother must recognize her own child; the other group admits them (Italy, France, Spain, Holland…), leaving the mother free to recognize her child or not.
The practice of the Church, which created foundling hospitals, now tends to eliminate the status of *expositi* by persuading the mother to recognize her illegitimate offspring, providing for his support, while always safeguarding, as is natural, the rights of family integrity. It is on this level that the Constitution of the Italian Republic also seems to stand (art. 30). The exposure of offspring in the modern sense, not to speak of absolute abandonment, is in itself always illicit, unless motives of a higher order, such as the integrity of the family or of society, justify II. V. INFANZIA ABBANDONATA.