In re Elianah T.-T.
165 A.3d 1236
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Children were temporarily committed to the Commissioner of Children and Families; a trial court order placed them "in the custody of the Commissioner" pending further order.
- The Department sought to authorize vaccination over the parents’ religious objections.
- Central statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-10(c) (authorizing the commissioner to authorize medical treatment to preserve life/health in custody situations) and § 17a-1(12) (definition of "guardian" enacted in 1998).
- The commissioner argued that, as guardian of temporarily committed children, she had the authority to consent to vaccination (and to invoke statutory immunization exemptions) without parental consent.
- The concurrence concludes the statutes, legislative history, and department practice support that § 17a-10(c) was intended for emergencies and that § 17a-1(12) does not make the commissioner the exclusive guardian able to override parental decisions on nonemergency medical care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 17a-10(c) or guardianship law authorizes the commissioner to vaccinate children in temporary custody over parental religious objection | Commissioner: as guardian of children in temporary custody (§ 46b-129(j)(4)), she has guardian rights under § 17a-1(12) and thus can authorize vaccinations and invoke immunization rules | Parents: temporary custody does not terminate parental guardianship rights; statutory and constitutional protections preserve parents’ control over nonemergency medical decisions | Court: § 17a-10(c) is limited to emergency medical treatment; § 17a-1(12) does not vest the commissioner with exclusive authority to override parents’ religious objections to vaccination |
| Scope of § 17a-10(c) (emergency vs. nonemergency) | Commissioner: statute authorizes commissioner to authorize medical treatment when in child’s best interest (broadly applied) | Parents: statute and history show emergency-only intent; nonemergency decisions require parental consent or court order | Held: § 17a-10(c) reasonably read to permit action only when immediate medical treatment is needed and there is no time to obtain parental consent |
| Whether § 17a-1(12) (1998) converted temporary custody into exclusive guardianship | Commissioner: § 17a-1(12) defines guardian and thus confers major decisionmaking authority while child is committed | Parents: statute defines "guardian" but applies to judicially created, permanent relationships; does not automatically convert temporary custody into full guardianship | Held: § 17a-1(12) does not expand the commissioner’s rights to be exclusive guardian over temporarily committed children |
| Standard for court authorization of medical treatment over parental objection | Commissioner: implied need for authority to act in child’s best interest, possibly without heightened standard | Parents: parental substantive due process and religious liberty require strong protection; court intervention needed if parents refuse | Held: if commissioner seeks court authorization over parental objection, the proper standard balances parental rights, child’s health interests, and state’s parens patriae interest (as in McCauley); vaccination over religious objection is constrained by legislative policy favoring exemptions (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizes parents’ fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of their children)
- State v. DeCiccio, 315 Conn. 79 (court must construe statutes to avoid constitutional infirmities)
- In the Matter of McCauley, 409 Mass. 134 (balances parental rights, child’s interests, and state parens patriae when state seeks to order medical treatment over parental objection)
- Diana H. v. Rubin, 217 Ariz. 131 (federal due process requires a compelling interest to override combined religious and parental rights to refuse vaccination)
- In re G.K., 993 A.2d 558 (parents retained certain consent rights for medical treatment despite state custody provisions)
- Guardianship of Stein, 105 Ohio St. 3d 30 (parents retain right to withdraw life-supporting treatment until parental rights are permanently terminated)