Department of Human Services v. S. M.
256 Or. App. 15
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS petitioned for dependency jurisdiction over eight children ages 1–8 under ORS 419B.100(l)(c) for endangering conditions.
- At a review, DHS sought court-ordered immunization despite parents' religious objections; the court granted immunization.
- Following petitions, the juvenile court declared the children wards, placed them with DHS custody/guardianship, and DHS later placed them with relatives.
- During a review hearing the court stated the state would decide immunization since the parents no longer had custody.
- The court entered a judgment that the child may be immunized over parental objection based on medical advice; parents appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, rejecting parental statutory rights to exemption and the need for individualized fitness or medical-necessity findings under the Troxel/Smith framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS and the court may immunize over parental objections | Parents: rights persist; exemption exists | Statutes authorize state/custodian to approve care | Yes; authorized under ORS 419B.352, 373, 376 |
| Whether parents retain a right to exempt immunization when custody is with the state | Parents retain exemption rights | No standalone parental exemption right; state may decide | No independent right to exempt; statutes do not condition authority on parental consent |
| Whether Smith/Troxel framework requires individualized unfitness or medical-necessity findings | Smith requires unfitness and necessity | Troxel/O’Donnell-Lamont framework applies; presumption of fit parent | Smith not controlling; immunization need not be shown with unfitness/necessity findings |
| What custodial/guardian authority applies to medical decisions for wards | Court, guardian, and custodian authorities coexist; state custody permits medical decisions under statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (US Supreme Court 2000) (parental due-process right with presumption of fitness)
- O’Donnell-Lamont, 337 Or 86 (Oregon Supreme Court 2004) (presumption for fit parents; weight to parent’s determination)
- Smith, 205 Or App 152 (Ore. App. 2006) (distinguishes Troxel; no blanket unfitness/necessity rule)
- In re Stratton, 153 N.C. App. 428 (N.C. App. 2002) (immunization in state custody rejected parental exemption)
- In re C. R., 257 Ga. App 159 (Ga. App. 2002) (parent forfeits right when custody transferred to state authorities)
- Diana H. v. Rubin, 217 Ariz. 131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (Arizona held caregiver lacking right to immunize over mother’s objection)