215 A.3d 471
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- Newborn child (K.Y.-B.) was placed in shelter care by Baltimore City DSS two days after birth; CINA petition filed Jan 4, 2019.
- Department alleged parents had a lengthy history of abuse/neglect of other children, prior indicated findings, failure to obtain medical care, and one infant death in the family.
- Initial magistrate order (Jan 7, 2019) granted limited guardianship to DSS but denied authority to consent to immunizations due to Mother’s religious objection; juvenile court later adopted shelter care and authorized DSS to allow routine vaccinations (order entered Jan 22, 2019) subject to stay.
- Mother appealed; subsequent shelter-care hearings occurred and Mother at times failed to object or consented to continued shelter care, leading to dispute over waiver/mootness of appeal.
- The Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal as to the shelter-care placement (finding waiver) but preserved review of the vaccination-authority question and affirmed the court’s authorization for DSS to consent to routine immunizations over Mother’s religious objection.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department / Child’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of continued shelter care (interlocutory appeal) | Mother contested January shelter-care order | DSS/Child argued Mother waived objection by consenting to later shelter-care orders | Court: Mother waived right to contest the Jan 22 shelter-care order by later consenting; appeal dismissed as to shelter care |
| Authority to consent to immunizations over religious objection | Mother argued Health-Gen. §18-4A-03 and her religious rights barred court/DSS from authorizing vaccinations | DSS/Child argued statute applies only when parent is not reasonably available; state interest in child welfare/public health outweighs parental religious claim | Court: §18-4A-03 does not apply because Mother was available and objecting; juvenile court did not abuse discretion in authorizing DSS to consent to routine vaccinations given child’s welfare and public-health interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.J., 231 Md. App. 304 (2016) (parent may waive right to contest shelter-care order by later consenting to continued shelter care)
- Bienenfeld v. Bennett-White, 91 Md. App. 488 (1992) (courts may consider parental religious views when those views affect child’s physical or emotional welfare)
- Levitsky v. Levitsky, 231 Md. 388 (1963) (religious belief is protected but actions endangering child’s life or health may be restricted)
- In re O.P., 240 Md. App. 518 (2019) (overview of CINA statutory scheme and standards for adjudication and disposition)
- In Re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (standard of review for discretionary family-court decisions)
- In re Adoption/Guardianship of Rashawn H., 402 Md. 477 (2007) (recognition of parents’ fundamental rights but acknowledgment they are not absolute when child welfare is at stake)