In Re Elianah T.-T., 171 A.3d 447

Background

Commissioner of Children and Families (petitioner) originally argued statutory authority (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 17a-10(c), 17a-1(12)) permitted vaccinating children in the commissioner’s temporary custody over parental objection.
After release of the original opinion, petitioner moved for reconsideration raising new statutory grounds (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 17a-93(4), 17a-98, 46b-129(j)(4)) claiming these statutes confer full guardianship powers while a child is committed to the commissioner’s temporary custody.
The concurrence (Rogers, C.J., joined by four justices) agreed it was inappropriate to consider the petitioner’s new statutory claims raised on reconsideration and therefore expressed no definitive ruling on those statutory questions.
The concurrence expressed serious constitutional concerns if those statutes were read to give the commissioner authority to override parental objections to medical treatment, invoking parental liberty under the Due Process Clause (e.g., Santosky v. Kramer).
The concurrence observed that, as a matter of state public policy, Connecticut law already provides a religious exemption to certain school immunization requirements (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a), suggesting the legislature has balanced parental religious objections against public/child health in favor of permitting exemptions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §§ 17a-93(4), 17a-98, 46b-129(j)(4) grant commissioner full guardianship authority to authorize medical treatment over parental objection	Commissioner: those statutes confer guardianship power, allowing medical decisions including vaccination	Opposing party: statutes do not extinguish parental decisionmaking rights while custody is temporary; such authority should not be implied	Court declined to consider these new statutory claims on reconsideration; concurrence expressed no definitive statutory holding
Whether existing statutes (e.g., § 17a-10(c)) authorize vaccinating children in temporary custody over parental objection	Commissioner: § 17a-10(c) authorizes medical treatment when in child's best interest, implying vaccination authority	Parents: parental rights persist during temporary custody; state must show compelling interest to override objections, especially religious	Concurrence doubts § 17a-10(c) alone suffices and emphasizes balancing parental liberty, child welfare, and state interests; finds legislative religious exemption (§ 10-204a) likely limits commissioner’s authority
Constitutional question: Can the state override parental objections to medical treatment for children in temporary custody without terminating parental rights?	Commissioner: state’s parens patriae and child-welfare duties may permit intervention for child/ public health	Parents: fundamental parental liberty and free-exercise rights require compelling state interest and narrowly tailored intrusion	Concurrence: serious constitutional doubts about allowing override absent stronger statutory grant and required balancing/compelling-interest showing

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of their child)
Diana H. v. Rubin, 217 Ariz. 131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (state must show compelling interest before overriding parental religious objections to vaccination)
In re G.K., 993 A.2d 558 (D.C. App. 2010) (parents retained rights to consent to certain medical care despite child in state custody)
In the Matter of McCauley, 409 Mass. 134 (Mass. 1991) (balancing parents’ rights, child interests, and state parens patriae in medical decision disputes)
In re Guardianship of Stein, 105 Ohio St. 3d 30 (Ohio 2004) (parents retain right to withdraw life-supporting treatment until parental rights terminated)
In re Deng, 314 Mich. App. 615 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (statutory scheme allowed vaccinating children in temporary custody over parental religious objections under that state’s law)