In re Matthew M.
88 Cal.App.5th 1186
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Matthew M., a dependent child, was placed at Five Acres STRTP after psychiatric hospitalizations and behavioral diagnoses; he turned 12 while in placement.
- At a six-month review (Nov. 4, 2021) a juvenile court referee authorized Matthew’s COVID-19 vaccination per CDC guidance, subject to pediatrician approval; mother Christina P. objected.
- Christina later filed a section 388 petition to revoke the vaccination authorization, asserting religious objections (Christian belief that vaccines are "unclean" and used fetal cells) and health concerns (history of psychiatric medication, tardive dyskinesia, and potential side effects).
- The Department opposed the petition, produced the child’s pediatrician’s letter stating no contraindication to Pfizer vaccine, and emphasized congregate placement and community risk.
- At the evidentiary hearing the court found Christina had not presented new, material evidence or credible medical proof, and concluded revoking the vaccination order was not in Matthew’s best interest.
- The court denied the section 388 petition; Christina appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCFS) | Defendant's Argument (Christina) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Christina presented new evidence/change of circumstances under § 388 sufficient to reopen the prior vaccination authorization | No; mother’s religious and factual assertions were available earlier and did not qualify as "new" material evidence | Her detailed religious justification and health concerns were newly submitted in the § 388 petition and thus procedurally proper to consider | Court: No new evidence; petition fails first prong of § 388 (no substantial, previously unavailable evidence) |
| Whether revoking the vaccination authorization is in the child’s best interest | Vaccination appropriate: pediatrician found no contraindication, Pfizer vaccine authorized for 12+, congregate setting and school exposure increase risk, public health benefits outweigh speculative risks | Parental religious liberty and concerns about vaccine harms/tardive dyskinesia justify withholding the vaccine to protect child’s mental and physical health | Court: Even if evidence were "new," it did not show revocation was in the child’s best interest; authorization stands |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.P., 53 Cal.App.5th 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (juvenile court may order medical treatment, including vaccinations, over parental objection)
- In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal.4th 398 (Cal. 1994) (§ 388 requires showing new evidence/change and best interest)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (standard of review for juvenile court best-interest determinations)
- In re D.B., 217 Cal.App.4th 1080 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (definition and limits of "new evidence" under § 388)
- In re H.S., 188 Cal.App.4th 103 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (requires diligence and materiality for "new evidence")
- In re R.V., 61 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2015) (appellate review when party fails to carry burden in juvenile court)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1944) (religious freedom does not permit exposing child or public to communicable disease)
- In re Carmen M., 141 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (broad juvenile-court authority over dependent child medical orders)
- Brown v. Smith, 24 Cal.App.5th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (recognition of state power to impose compulsory vaccination)
- Walker v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.3d 112 (Cal. 1988) (religious conduct remains subject to regulation for protection of society)