DCPP VS. J.B. AND C.R., IN THE MATTER OF CA.R. AND C.R., JR. (FN-13-0079-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
212 A.3d 444
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2019Background
- Mother (J.B.) and Father (C.R.) had two children removed after substantiated abuse/neglect; children have been in Division custody since October 2017 and placed with resource parents in Ocean County.
- Parents declined age‑appropriate vaccinations for the children on asserted religious grounds; Mother advised Division and hospital staff of her objection and refused newborn vaccines for Son.
- Division sought court authorization to vaccinate the children (including MMR); Law Guardian joined; Family Part held a plenary hearing and ordered vaccinations, with Son to be seen first by his allergist.
- Trial court relied on medical testimony that MMR is safe and necessary, the Division’s regulatory duty to ensure immunizations for children in placement, and an ongoing measles outbreak in Ocean County.
- Mother appealed arguing religious‑exemption provisions for school immunizations (Title 26) prohibit vaccination over her objection; she presented no medical evidence contesting vaccine safety or allergy risk that could not be managed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Division (or court) may order age‑appropriate immunizations for children in Division custody over parents' religious objections | Division: Title 9 and Division regulations authorize providing medical care, including immunizations, to protect children in its custody | Mother: Religious exemption statutes/regulations (Title 26 school immunization exemptions) bar compulsory vaccination over religious objection | Held: Division may authorize vaccinations for children in its custody; parental religious objection does not prevail under Title 9 in this context |
| Whether N.J.S.A. 26:1A‑9.1 / school immunization exemptions apply to children in Division custody | Division: Those provisions govern school attendance, not children in Division custody; Division's duties under Title 9 control | Mother: The statutory religious exemption should apply broadly to prevent vaccination over parental religious objection | Held: Title 26 exemptions inapplicable because this is not a school‑attendance context; Title 9 governs medical care for children in placement |
| Whether ordering prophylactic vaccination is distinguishable from ordering medical treatment over parental objection | Division: Parens patriae authority allows prophylactic measures to prevent serious harm; prevention better serves child’s best interests | Mother: Parental rights and religious freedom limit the State's ability to impose medical interventions | Held: No meaningful distinction; courts may order preventive care (vaccination) over parental objection to protect child’s health |
| Whether the Division/State interest is sufficiently compelling given local measles outbreak and vaccine efficacy/safety evidence | Division: Measles is highly contagious and potentially deadly; MMR is safe and effective; Division must protect children and public health | Mother: Relies on religious beliefs and contested safety claims (no competent evidence provided) | Held: State interest in protecting children (and public health) outweighs parent's objection; medical evidence supported vaccination |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (standard of appellate review for family court fact‑finding)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (substantial evidence standard reference)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental liberty interest in raising children)
- In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1 (1992) (recognition of parents' constitutionally protected interest even when children in foster care)
- In re D.C., 203 N.J. 545 (2010) (courts may override parental objection to medical treatment to prevent harm)
- Bd. of Educ. of Mountain Lakes v. Maas, 56 N.J. Super. 245 (App. Div. 1959) (vaccination as reasonable health regulation)
- Sadlock v. Bd. of Educ., 137 N.J.L. 85 (Sup. Ct. 1948) (vaccines as safe and valuable for preventing disease)