In re Deng
314 Mich. App. 615
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother and father of four young children were adjudicated unfit in juvenile proceedings based on homelessness, lack of support/supervision, and the mother’s mental-health and substance-abuse issues; children placed in out-of-home foster care.
- During dispositional proceedings, DHHS/foster worker requested court order requiring physician-recommended vaccinations; mother objected on religious grounds.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing, credited medical testimony that vaccinations benefit the children and public health, assumed the mother’s religious objections were sincere, but ordered vaccinations under its dispositional authority (MCL 712A.18(1)(f)).
- Mother appealed, arguing she retained statutory and constitutional rights to refuse vaccinations for her children (relying on MCL 333.9215(2), MCL 722.127, and Hunter).
- Court of Appeals granted leave, stayed enforcement, and ultimately reviewed whether an adjudicated-unfit parent may bar court-ordered vaccinations for children under juvenile-court jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court may order vaccinations over objections of an adjudicated-unfit parent | Mother: MCL 333.9215(2)/MCL 722.127 and Free Exercise protect her right to refuse immunization for children | Petitioner: Once adjudicated unfit, parental decisionmaking shifts to the court under MCL 712A.18(1)(f); court may order medical care | Held: Court may order physician-recommended vaccinations during dispositional phase when appropriate for child/society welfare |
| Whether Public Health Code religious exemption applies to court-ordered vaccinations in juvenile dispositional orders | Mother: Public Health Code exemption (religious objection) continues to apply | Petitioner: Exemption governs DHHS rules and school enrollment, not juvenile dispositional authority; juvenile code control is separate and specific | Held: Exemption in Public Health Code inapplicable to dispositional orders; juvenile-code authority prevails in this context |
| Whether MCL 722.127 limits court authority to consent to medical care for children in out-of-home care | Mother: MCL 722.127 prohibits rules requiring immunization over parental religious objection | Petitioner: MCL 722.127 is part of childcare organizations act and does not override the juvenile code’s specific dispositional authority | Held: MCL 712A.18(1)(f) (juvenile code) is the more specific provision and governs; court may order care despite MCL 722.127 |
| Whether Hunter v. Hunter requires preserving parental statutory rights despite adjudication of unfitness | Mother: Hunter suggests statutory parental rights survive adjudication because statutes do not mention fitness | Petitioner: Hunter is limited to Child Custody Act disputes and doesn’t apply to juvenile-code protective proceedings | Held: Hunter is inapplicable; its holding is restricted to Child Custody Act cases and does not alter juvenile-code dispositional authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (recognizes parental rights to direct childrearing)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (state may limit parental authority for child welfare)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental presumption of acting in child’s best interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights do not vanish because of nonideal parenting; due process protections apply)
- Sanders v. Wayne County Friend of the Court, 495 Mich. 394 (dispositional orders after juvenile adjudication entitled to deference; juvenile court broad authority)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 484 Mich. 247 (interpretation limited to Child Custody Act presumption context; does not extend to juvenile dispositional proceedings)