ABANDONED CHILDHOOD. — I. a. is synonymous with *infanzia in abbandono* (from Old French *abandon*, meaning "at the mercy and discretion [of another]"). This category includes children who are incapable of providing for themselves and are left to their own devices by those entrusted with their custody and care. The abandonment referred to here is not that which is carried out with the deliberate intent to harm the child, but rather an evasion of the responsibilities or burdens of care or custody, severing all traces of the bond created by the child’s existence. The terms encountered in this context are two: abandonment and exposure of offspring (*V. Esposti*). In the history of the issue, these terms have sometimes been synonymous and sometimes not, depending on the historical period and social conditions.
The Romans, as attested by sources (unlike the Greeks), used the term *exponere* to denote the act of abandonment, whether with the intention that the newborn should die or that it might be found and thus saved.
In the Middle Ages and later, especially in scholarly treatises, the concept of exposure was understood in the same dual sense as among the Romans.
Beginning at a certain point, influenced by historical events—most notably the creation and development of specialized institutions such as foundling hospitals (*v.*), a distinction began to be drawn between exposure and abandonment of offspring. In the modern world, following the reform of charitable institutions in this field, the two concepts underwent further clarification.
Today, *esposizione* refers to entrusting offspring to a foundling hospital. *Abbandono di infanzia*, on the other hand, refers to the action by which parents abandon the child, whether with malicious intent or simply with the intention of entrusting it to public charity. These are therefore two distinct problems; in fact, while exposure is legally licit, even if not morally so, abandonment of infancy is considered a crime under all modern legal systems. In practice, even those found in a state of actual abandonment, if investigations do not lead to the discovery of those who abandoned them, are admitted to foundling hospitals and treated as exposed children.
Canon and civil laws prior to the creation of modern codes addressed *a. a.* and imposed penalties on those guilty of this crime. A decree of Gregory IX (*De infantibus et languidis expositis*) permanently deprived parents who abandoned a child of *patria potestas*. In judicial practice, severe criminal penalties were applied to those guilty of abandoning an infant, even in cases without criminal intent.
The penalty could extend to death in cases where the child died; in other cases, lesser penalties were imposed (*cf.* A. Bossius, *Tractatus varii qui omnem fere criminalem materiam pertractant*, Venice 1612, pp. 106–107). Currently, in some countries, the law punishes *a. a.* in a general sense: thus in Poland, where cases of abandonment of people (and thus also children) in an abnormal or unconscious state are generically contemplated (Art. 200). Other legal systems address more specifically the case of parents who abandon their offspring (Swiss Penal Code, Art. 219).
Russian legislation on this matter is laconically simple but imprecise (Art. 158). In many other nations, cases of abandonment by those entrusted with the child’s custody are distinguished from those by parents, with greater penalties imposed in the latter case: thus, for example, in Germany (Art. 221) and in France, where, among other distinctions, the case of abandonment in a frequented place is distinguished from that in an unfrequented place (Arts. 349–52). Dutch law in this area follows French legislation (Arts. 256–59). The country with the most detailed legislation on this matter is Austria, where individual cases are all considered (Arts. 149–52).
Italian legislation is very clear and specific in this regard, addressing both the general case of abandonment of a minor under 14 years of age or an incapacitated person (Art. 591) and the specific case of abandonment of an infant for reasons of honor. Anyone who abandons a newborn immediately after birth to preserve their own honor or that of a close relative is punished with imprisonment from three months to one year. The penalty is imprisonment from six months to two years if the act results in personal injury, and from two to five years if it results in the death of the newborn (Art. 592). Without the excuse of honor, the penalty is from six months to five years if no personal injury occurs; from one to six years if personal injury does occur; and from three to eight years if death results.
But before modern penal codes, the abandonment of infancy was already condemned by Christian conscience.
The father of the Greco-Roman family was the absolute master, and it was permissible for him to abandon his children to death or to the charity of others (the mother could do so with illegitimate children). Even the great thinkers of Greco-Roman antiquity approved the liceity of abandoning infancy for reasons of social or political utility (*cf.* Plato, *De repub.*, 1880; VIII, 459; Aristotle, *Politics*, VII, 17, 10). The Fathers of the Church forcefully opposed the pagan philosophers’ use and justifications of abandonment, condemning it both for the danger to the child’s life—deprived of the natural and indispensable aid to continue living—and for the evident unnatural interruption of the bonds between parents and children, even illegitimate ones (*cf.* St. Justin, *I Apol.*, 27; PG, 6, 370; Athenagoras, *Legatio*, 35; PG, 6, 970; Tertullian, *Apol.*, 9; CSEL, 69, p. 26; *id.*, *Ad nationes*, I, 16; *ibid.*, XX, p. 87; Minucius Felix, *Octavius*, 30–31; *ibid.*, II, pp. 43–44; Clement of Alexandria, *Paedag.*, III; PG, 8, 585).
Abandonment of offspring is therefore a grave sin, even apart from the danger to the child’s life; for this reason, it has been prosecuted since the earliest Christian times even by conciliar laws (Council of Vaison [442], can. 9 in Mansi, VI, col. 455; Second Council of Arles [452], can. 51, *ibid.*, VII, col. 884; Council of Agde, can. 24, *ibid.*, VIII, col. 329).
The moral judgment of condemnation, clear when dealing with the case of actual abandonment of infancy, can likewise be applied today to the special case of *i. a.* known as exposure. For historical and social reasons—first among them the very existence of foundling hospitals—moralists in some cases admitted the liceity of abandoning infancy in such institutions for reasons of social or individual order, especially in cases of illegitimate birth. But in itself, the principles of Christian morality also condemn the exposure of offspring to foundling hospitals. It is the duty of parents (*v.*) to acknowledge and, if possible, raise their children themselves, even if illegitimate, unless their presence would remove or disturb goods of a higher order than those to which the child is entitled—namely, the integrity of the family or the protection of social order. Motives of a merely personal or contingent nature cannot justify, before the conscience, the abandonment of offspring. Even in cases involving higher-order motives, it is never licit to resort to simple abandonment, at least under present social conditions. At most, one might resort to exposure, though even on this point theological thought today tends toward greater severity.
But beyond the direct crime of abandoning the child, there are today, especially, other causes that have created and continue to create instances of *i. a.* It is no longer the perverse will of parents or guardians that leaves children—who are still unable to fend for themselves—at the mercy of material and moral abandonment. Rather, it is causes of force majeure, such as wartime events, voluntary and forced migrations, and the absolute loss of any relatives. More often than not, even if there is not complete material abandonment, there is complete or near-complete moral abandonment.
The Catholic Church, which, as has been seen, has always been so sensitive to the phenomenon of child abandonment from antiquity and is strikingly visible in mission territories (v. S. INFANZIA and cf. Instructio ad tuendam puerorum matrimonae vitam in locis missionum, 11 Feb. 1936, in AAS, 28 [1936], pp. 208 ff), has also wished to intervene with a new solemn document, the encyclical Quemadmodum, 6 Jan. 1946, regarding the moral and material assistance of indigent and abandoned children in our countries of ancient civilization, faced with the recent spectacle of child abandonment, which has not always existed since the war and post-war periods. In addition to the charitable work of its sons, it has wished to intervene with this new solemn document. The encyclical is a wholehearted exhortation “to support with prayer, collaboration, and offerings... the provident activities established to assist morally and materially indigent and abandoned children” (cf. the Italian translation, in Il monitore ecclesiastico, 71 [1946], pp. 14-27).