Children, Family, and the State

What are the three cases in the parental rights trilogy?

Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Prince v. Massachusetts

Meyer v. Nebraska - What happened?

Nebraska passed a law prohibiting foreign-language instruction to children who have not completed eighth grade. Meyer was convicted for teaching German to a 10-year-old student.

Meyer v. Nebraska - What was the issue and holding?

Does prohibiting foreign language instruction to young children violate the 14th amendment? Yes, Meyer won.

Meyer v. Nebraska - What is the rule?

The due process clause protects fundamental liberties, including the right to teach and learn. The state can regulate education, but its regulations must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and cannot unreasonably interfere with protected liberty.

Meyer v. Nebraska - What was the analysis?

Nebraska’s law went too far. Although the state had legitimate interests in regulating education, completely prohibiting foreign language instruction was not reasonably necessary.

Meyer v. Nebraska - What are the competing interests?

Parents want control over their children’s education and educational background. The state wants commonality and the ability to regulate education.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters - What happened?

Oregon passed a law requiring almost all children to attend public schools, effectively preventing parents from sending their children to private schools.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters - What was the holding?

The law violated parents’ 14th amendment rights. Society of Sisters won.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters - What is the rule?

Parents have a protected liberty to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The state can regulate education but cannot completely control how parents educate their children.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters - What does “the child is not the mere creature of the State” mean?

The government cannot completely control a child’s up brining. Parents have the right and responsibility to direct their children’s education and development.

Prince v. Massachusetts - What happened?

Prince allowed her young niece, a Jehovah’s Witness, to distribute religious magazines on the street. Massachusetts prohibited children from distributing materials in public places.

Prince v. Massachusetts - What was the holding?

The state could restrict the activity to protect children’s health and welfare. Massachusetts won.

Prince v. Massachusetts - What is the rule?

Parents have fundamental rights to direct their children’s upbringing and religious education, but those rights are not absolute. The state can enact reasonable laws to protect children from harm.

Prince v. Massachusetts - What was the analysis?

Prince’s religious rights did not give her unlimited control over the child. The state’s interest in protecting children outweighed her interest in allowing the activity.

Prince v. Massachusetts - What did the dissent argue?

The state should not interfere with religious practices unless there is a sufficiently strong reason to justify the interference.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - What happened?

Amish parents refused to send their children to school after eighth grade because their religious beliefs opposed continued formal education. Wisconsin required school attendance until age 16.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - What was the holding?

Requiring Amish children to attend school until age 16 violated the parents’ first amendment right to freely exercise their religion. Yoder won.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - What is the rule?

Religious beliefs must be sincerely held, the law must substantially burden religious practice, and the government’s interest must be strong enough to justify that burden.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - What was the analysis?

Requiring additional schooling substantially interfered with the Amish parents’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Wisconsin’s educational interest was not strong enough to outweigh their religious freedom.

Wisconsin v. Yoder - What did the dissent argue?

The children’s own interests should be considered. Parents’ religious beliefs should not automatically determine what is best for their children.

What is an unfit parent?

A parent with a defect or problem that affects their ability to properly care for and raise their child.

Kennedy v. Kennedy - What is the best-interest-of-the-child standard?

Custody decisions must be based on the child’s best interests, considering all relevant circumstances affecting the child’s welfare.

Kennedy v. Kennedy - What are the five primary statutory best-interest factors?

1) Wishes of the parents regarding custody.

2) Wishes of the child regarding their custodian

3) Relationships with parents, siblings, and other important individuals.

4) Adjustment to home, school, and community

5) Mental and physical health of everyone involved.

What additional factors may courts consider when determining the child’s best interests?

Child’s preference, parental sexual conduct and sexual orientation, religion, physical and mental disability, domestic violence, and childcare issues.

Kennedy v. Kennedy - What happened and who won?

After the divorce, the father received physical custody of the three older children, and the mother received custody of the youngest. The appellate court affirmed the physical custody decision but modified the judgment to provide joint legal custody.

What is legal custody?

The right to make important decision for the child.

What is physical custody?

The right to have the child live with you and provide day-to-day care.

What is joint legal custody?

Both parents share the right to make major decisions for the child.

What is sole legal custody?

Only one parent has the right to make major decisions for the child.

What is joint physical and legal custody?

Both parents share decision-making responsibilities, and the child spends significant time living with both parents.

Troxel v. Granville - What happened?

After the children’s father dies, their grandparents requested more visitation. Their mother wanted to limit visitation, but Washington law allowed anyone to petition for visitation based on the child’s best interest.

Troxel v. Granville - What was the holding?

A court cannot override a fit parent’s visitation decision without giving that decision special weight. Granville won.

Troxel v. Granville - What is the rule?

Fit parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about their children’s care, custody, and up brining. A fit parent is presumed to act in the child’s best interests.

Troxel v. Granville - Why was the visitation law unconstitutional?

The law allowed anyone to request visitation whenever it served the child’s best interests without giving sufficient weight to the fit parent’s decision.

In the interest of D.K. - What happened?

D.K. has serious medical problems, and his mother struggled to provide proper medical care, food, hygiene, and a safe environment. The state sought custody.

In the interest of D.K. - What was the holding?

The state could interfere with parental custody because the child’s health and welfare were at risk. The state won.

In the interest of D.K. - What is the rule?

The state may intervene to protect a child when necessary, while giving due regard to parental rights. The child must be protected and cared for as a ward of the state.

In re Matthew S. - What happened?

Matthew’s mother suffered from serious delusions, including believing Matthew had been sexually mutilated. Her behavior created emotional burdens and confusion for Matthew.

In re Matthew S. - What was the holding?

The mother’s behavior created a substantial risk of serious emotional damage, justifying juvenile court jurisdiction. The department won.

In re Matthew S. - What is the rule?

A child may be considered dependent when there is a substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm because of a parent’s failure or inability to supervise, protect, or provide adequate necessities or medical treatment.

In re Matthew S. - Does the child need to suffer actual emotional harm?

No. A substantial risk of serious emotional damage can be enough.

L.L. Colorado - What happened?

L.L.’s children were found dependent and neglected and placed with foster parents. The state sought permanent guardianship rather than terminating her parental rights.

L.L. Colorado - What was the holding?

Using a preponderance of the evidence standard to restrict parental rights in a permanent guardianship proceeding did not violate due process. The state won.

L.L. Colorado - What is the rule?

In dependency and guardianship proceedings, the state may use a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the clear and convincing standard required for termination of parental rights.

L.L. Colorado - Why was preponderance sufficient?

Her parental rights were restricted but not completely terminated. She retained certain rights and could request changed to custody and visitation.

In re Fetus Brown - What happened?

Darlene Brown was 34 weeks pregnant and a Jehovah’s Witness. She needed a blood transfusion to survive but refused because of her religious beliefs. The state authorized a transfusion against her wishes.

In re Fetus Brown - What was the holding?

The state could not force a competent pregnant woman to receive medical treatment to protect her viable fetus. Brown won.

In re Fetus Brown - What is the rule?

A competent pregnant woman has the right to refuse medical treatment, even when refusing treatment may endanger a viable fetus.

In re Fetus Brown - What was the analysis?

Brown was a competent adult who clearly refused treatment. The state’s interest in protecting the fetus did not give it authority to control her body or force an invasive procedure.

What is a guardian ad litem?

Someone appointed by the court to protect a child’s interests when the parents cannot or should not do so.

In the matter of Cabrera - What happened?

Cabrera was a six year old with sickle cell anemia. His Jehovah’s Witness parents refused blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs.

In the Matter of Cabrera - What was the holding?

The state could override the parents’ religious objections and authorize treatment to protect the child’s health. The hospital won.

In the Matter of Cabrera - What is the rule?

When a child’s physical or mental health is seriously threatened, the state’s interest in protecting the child may override a parent’s religious right to control the child’s up brining.

In the Matter of Cabrera - What factors affect the state’s interest in medical intervention?

The foreseeability and imminence of harm. The more imminent the danger, the greater the state’s interest.

How does In re Fetus Brown differ from In the Matter of Cabrera?

Brown involved forcing medical treatment on a competent pregnant adult. Cabrera involved parents refusing medically beneficial treatment for their child.

In re E.G. - What happened?

E.G. was a 17 year old Jehovah’s Witness with leukemia who needed blood transfusions. She and her mother refused treatment because of their religious beliefs.

In re E.G. - What was the holding?

A sufficiently mature minor may have the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment. E.G. won.

In re E.G. - What is the rule?

A minor may be mature enough to make medical decisions. Maturity must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

In re E.G. - What was the analysis?

E.G. was nearly 18 and understood the consequences of refusing treatment.

In re E.G. - What did the dissent argue?

E.G. was still legally a minor, and the legislature rather than the court should determine when minors can exercise adult rights.

What concerns were raised about the mature-minor doctrine?

There was no specific finding to determine maturity, and there was no inconsistency because of a minor could potentially make medical decisions but could not rent an apartment.

Parham v. J.R. - What happened?

Georgia allowed parents to voluntarily commit children to state mental hospitals. J.R. argued children should receive a judicial hearing before commitment.

Parham v. J.R. - What was the holding?

Due process did not require a prior judicial hearing before voluntary commitment. Georgia won.

Parham v. J.R. - What is the rule?

Qualified medical professionals must independently determine whether institutionalization is appropriate. Safeguards must exist against improper confinement, and continued hospitalization must be periodically reviewed.

Parham v. J.R. - What did the concurrence emphazise?

Parents generally have primary responsibility for their children’s care, and medical safeguards provide sufficient protection against improper confinement.

Parham v. J.R. - What did the dissent argue?

Children should receive greater procedural protection before being confined in a mental hospital.

Does a mental-health diagnosis automatically establish a risk of harm?

No. There must be a connection, or nexus, between the diagnosis and the risk to the child.

Why is imminence of danger important?

It helps determine how much state intervention is justified under the particular circumstances.

In re Shane T. - What happened?

Shane’s father repeatedly called him derogatory names and humiliated him because of his behavior. Shane experienced serious emotional distress and physical stomach pain. His mother knew about the treatment but failed to stop it.

In re Shane T. - What was the holding?

Verbal abuse can constitute child abuse when it causes serious physical or emotional harm. Both parents were held responsible.

In re Shane T. - What is the rule?

Physical injury does not necessarily require physical force. Verbal abuse can constitute child abuse when its effects cause substantial impairment or serious physical or emotional harm.

In re Shane T. - Does a parent’s right to discipline allow harmful conduct?

No. Parental discipline cannot seriously harm the child’s health or welfare.

What is ano fault petition?

A petition based on circumstances outside the parent’s control that prevent the parent from properly caring for the child, rather than intentional abuse or neglect.

What circumstances may qualify a juvenile for a no fault petition under the notes?

1. homelessness or destitution without proper support through no fault of the parent.

2. Abandonment

3. Lack of proper parental care due to parent’s faults or habits.

4. Failure to provide necessary subsistence, education, or care

5. Failure to provide special care required by the child’s mental condition.

6. Being in a situation or occupation dangerous to life, limb, health, or morals.

7. Certain specified acts or behaviors by a child under age 11.

State v. Wilkerson - What happened?

Wilkerson’s infant son died choking on cereal. The state argued that the child’s injuries and death were consistent with battered child syndrome.

State v. Wilkerson - What was the holding?

Expert testimony about Battered Child Syndrome was admissible to help establish whether the child’s injuries were caused by abuse. The state won.

State v. Wilkerson - What is the rule?

Expert testimony about Battered Child Syndrome is admissible when it helps explain whether a child’s injuries are consistent with abuse rather than accidental injury.

What is Battered Child Syndrome (BCS)?

A pattern of multiple injuries inflicted on a child over time, often involving different areas of the body and occurring at different time.

What are unexplained injuries?

Injuries a caregiver cannot adequately explain or explains in a way that does not match the nature, severity, or circumstances of the injury.

What was the importance of the medical evidence in Wilkerson?

The injuries were inconsistent with the explanation that the child simply choked on cereal.

People v. Walkley - What happened?

Walkley’s infant son was found with a limp body and serious injuries. The prosecution presented medical evidence concerning the caregiver’s behavior and possible intentional injury.

People v. Walkley - What was the holding?

Evidence of the syndrome was properly admitted because it helped establish that the injuries were intentionally caused. The prosecution won.

What is Battering Parent Syndrome?

A pattern of repeated physical abuse of a child by a parent or caregiver, often resulting in multiple injuries that may be difficult to explain as accidental.

People v. Phillips - What happened?

Phillips repeatedly gave her child a substance that caused the child to become ill and eventually die.

People v. Phillips - What was the holding?

Expert testimony about Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy was admissible to explain Phillip’s conduct and motive. The prosecution won.

What is Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSP)?

A caregiver makes or exaggerates a child’s illness or injury to gain attention or another psychological benefit.

People v. Phillips - What is the rule?

Expert testimony may be admitted when relevant to explain a defendant’s motive or conduct, even if the expert did not personally examine the defendant.

What concern did the notes raise about the father in Phillips?

The father should have known what was happening, but he was not discussed in the case.

Maryland v. Craig - What happened?

Craig was charged with sexually abusing a six year old child. The child testified from another room using one way close circuit television because testifying in Craig’s presence would cause serious emotional distress.

Maryland v. Craig - What was the holding?

Allowing the child to testify through closed circuit television did not violate the defendant’s 6th amendment confrontation right. Maryland won.

Maryland v. Craig - What is the rule?

The 6th amendment does not guarantee an absolute right to face to face confrontation. If the state establishes necessity, protecting child witnesses from serious emotional trauma can justify special testimony procedures.

What protections must remain when a child testifies through closed circuit television?

The child must testify under oath, be subject to cross-examination, and be observed by the judge or jury/

In re interest of Brian B. - What happened?

Kevin was accused of sexually abusing four year old Stephanie. The court allowed Stephanie to testify outside Kevin’s presence because of concerns about emotional harm.

In re interest of Brian B - What was the holding?

Allowing the child to testify outside the parent’s presence did not violate due process. The state won.

In re interest of Brian B. - What is the rule?

The confrontation clause does not apply in the same way in juvenile proceedings as it does in criminal trials. A child may testify outside the parent’s presence when there is a legitimate concern about emotional harm.

How does Maryland v. Craig differ from in re interest of Brian B?

Craig involves the 6th amendment confrontation right in criminal trials. Brian B. involves due process protections in juvenile proceedings.

Landeros v. Flood - What happened?

An 11 month old girl had multiple serious injuries indicating possible abuse. Dr. Flood failed to diagnose battered child syndrome and failed to report suspected abuse. The child was returned to her mother and suffered additional injuries.

Landeros v. Flood - What was the issue?

Whether a reasonably prudent physician would have suspected battered child syndrome, ordered additional X-rays, and promptly reported the findings to prevent further injuries.

Landeros v. Flood - What is the rule?

A physician must use the reasonable degree of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by physicians in similar circumstances. Failure to diagnose and report suspected abuse may support negligence liability when it foreseeably contributes to additional injuries.

Landeros v. Flood - Why was failure to report important?

Reporting statutes are designed to protect children from further abuse. Failure to report can contribute to foreseeable additional injuries.