Department of Human Services v. S. M.
323 P.3d 947
| Or. | 2014Background
- DHS was appointed as legal custodian and guardian of eight children after juvenile court jurisdiction due to welfare concerns.
- DHS sought to immunize the children against common childhood diseases for the children’s and others’ safety.
- Juv enile court issued review judgments allowing immunizations over parental objections.
- Parents argued DHS lacked authority to immunize, and religious objections were raised.
- The court analyzed ORS 419B.372 and 419B.376 and related guardianship provisions to determine DHS authority.
- The court ultimately held that DHS, as guardian, had authority to approve immunizations under the statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS has statutory authority to immunize the wards. | S.M. contends guardianship under 419B.372/419B.376 does not extend to immunizations. | DHS contends immunizations are within guardian authority as “other decisions concerning the ward of substantial legal significance.” | Yes; DHS authority; immunizations authorized. |
| Whether later amendments alter the scope of guardianship authority. | Parents argue 1995/2003 amendments narrowed authority of wardship guardianship. | Legislative changes do not alter the plain text; guardian authority remains. | No; amendments do not expressly or impliedly reduce authority under 419B.372/419B.376. |
| Whether due process requires different interpretation to avoid constitutional issues. | Argues potential due process concerns if DHS acts without parental unfitness proof. | Procedural safeguards (court concurrence, consultation rules) suffice; no constitutional flaw identified. | No constitutional problem identified; statutory interpretation aligns with due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (parental liberty interest; due process considerations acknowledged)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (parents retain liberty interests in care, custody, management)
- Baker v. City of Lakeside, 343 Or. 70 (Oregon Supreme Court 2007) (interpretations of broad terms in statutes should align with specific terms)
- State v. Ofodrinwa, 353 Or 507 (Oregon Supreme Court 2013) (late amendments may alter meaning only if expressly declared or implied)
- State v. Swanson, 351 Or 286 (Oregon Supreme Court 2011) (interpretation of statutory definitions and scope)
- Dept. of Human Services v. J. R. F., 351 Or 570 (Oregon Supreme Court 2012) (constitutional limits and statutory construction guide)