In THE INTEREST OF C.C., Children, 314 Ga. 446

Background

DFCS temporarily took custody of the Chandlers’ three children after a Lumpkin County dependency adjudication; the parents consented to dependency findings.
Lumpkin County initially ordered no vaccinations without judicial approval; the case later transferred to Forsyth County Juvenile Court.
At a review hearing, Brittani’s counsel asserted a religious objection to vaccinating the children; DFCS sought authority to provide ordinary medical care, including immunizations, under OCGA § 15-11-30.
The juvenile court found the Chandlers’ professed religious objections insincere and, on the merits, concluded the First Amendment and OCGA § 15-11-30 did not bar DFCS from vaccinating the children; the court also rejected a void-for-vagueness challenge.
DHS later issued an agency memorandum adopting a religious-exemption policy and represented it would not seek immunizations when a noncustodial parent expresses a sincere religious objection, but one child was nonetheless vaccinated; the Supreme Court denied DHS’s mootness motion.
The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the juvenile court’s order and remanded for application of the correct sincerity standard, because the juvenile court applied a partially incorrect legal test in finding insincerity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parents’ professed religious objection is sincere	Chandlers: they hold sincere religious objections that bar vaccination of their children	DFCS/DHS: parents’ objections are insincere, partly philosophical or secular, and should be disbelieved	Remanded — juvenile court applied wrong standard; sincerity is a threshold fact and must be reanalyzed using proper test
Whether the First Amendment bars DFCS from vaccinating dependent children over parents’ religious objection	Chandlers: First Amendment protects parents’ religious objections to vaccination even while children are in DFCS custody	DFCS: custody transfers rights to provide ordinary medical care under OCGA § 15-11-30, so vaccinations are permissible	Not decided on merits — Court declined to reach constitutional merits until sincerity is resolved
Whether OCGA § 15-11-30 preserves a parental religious-exemption right or is void for vagueness as applied	Chandlers: statute preserves residual parental religious rights or is vague as applied to religious objections to vaccination	DFCS: statute vests custodial authority (including ordinary medical care) in DFCS and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied	Not decided on merits — remanded for sincerity threshold first
Whether the appeal was moot due to DHS’s voluntary cessation and new policy	DHS: new memorandum and stated practice make the controversy moot	Chandlers: policy change is revocable/misapplied and one child was vaccinated post-policy, so case is live	Court denied mootness — voluntary cessation burden not met given agency memorandum, litigation defense of prior practice, and subsequent vaccination

Key Cases Cited

Frazee v. Ill. Dept. of Employ. Servs., 489 U.S. 829 (1989) (sincerity of religious belief is prerequisite to free-exercise claims)
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (only beliefs rooted in religion are protected by Free Exercise Clause)
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) (court must assess whether belief is "truly held")
WMW, Inc. v. Am. Honda Mot. Co., 291 Ga. 683 (2012) (Georgia adopts federal voluntary-cessation mootness doctrine)
City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (1982) (government unilateral policy changes may not moot litigation if reenactment is possible)
West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (government defending the legality of prior policy weighs against mootness)
Rockdale County v. U.S. Enters., Inc., 312 Ga. 752 (2021) (limitations on as-applied vagueness challenges and standing)
Oubre v. Woldemichael, 301 Ga. 299 (2017) (factual credibility findings and remand for unresolved factual issues)
Ackerman v. Washington, 16 F.4th 170 (6th Cir. 2021) (factors relevant to assessing religious-sincerity claims)
Moussazadeh v. Tex. Dept. of Crim. Justice, 703 F.3d 781 (5th Cir. 2012) (advocates a "light touch" in judicial scrutiny of sincerity)