needle-injection – Mariano Buenaventura/iStockphoto.com.

The measles epidemic has developed confrontations between parents, who have sincere and strong convictions against vaccinating their children, usually on religious grounds, and government officials, particularly school administrators. The risk of spreading disease without protection of the population by vaccination is clear, and courts both inside and outside of New Jersey have compelled it over parental objection, or have upheld barring non-vaccinated students from otherwise compelled attendance at school.

In its June 10 published opinion in the case of In re Ca.R and C.R.Jr., the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) obtained court approval to vaccinate children in its care, custody and supervision due to a finding of parental abuse and neglect. The parents objected and the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment.

The infant daughter was less than three years old, and a newborn son still in the hospital, when the DCCP received a referral due to the fact the family was living in a single motel room and sleeping in the same bed despite the fact the father was a Megan's Law offender subject to community supervision for life. The children had not been immunized with “age-appropriate vaccinations.” The Division sought a court order granting permission to compel vaccinations in order to immunize the children against measles, mumps and rubella. The Law Guardian joined the request, and a plenary hearing was conducted as to the need for such vaccinations at the children's age and in the circumstances. The trial court ordered the vaccinations subject to a report of any concern by an allergist, and the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal. Despite the fact that the trial court also a plan terminating parental rights while the appeal was proceeding on an emergent basis, the Appellate Division addressed the issue based on the record made (in the absence of termination of parental rights). The father did not participate in the appeal.

The court recognized the continuing rights of parents even when children are in foster care and noted the balancing recognized by our courts when medical care, to which parental objection is voiced, is needed. It also pointed to the Child Placement Bill of Rights which was enacted to protect the health, safety and welfare of children, including that relating to medical care. A duty of care is bestowed upon the resource parents as well as the division.

The highly contagious nature of measles justified the vaccinations and the “[p]arental rights [had to] yield to the safety and well-being” of the children, and the public safety, in the circumstances. “Requiring immunization” for age appropriate vaccinations “is an appropriate use of the State's police power.” And that is so notwithstanding sincere religious beliefs.

We write not only to endorse the Appellate Division opinion, the correctness of which we find obvious. But we write mostly to publicly state what has been taken for granted by lawyers and the public for years.

We occasionally read opinions and stories about cases in which the investigations of the DCPP (and the Division of Youth and Family Services before it) did not find abuse or neglect which proceeded some unfortunate event, whether the prior abuse or neglect had occurred. We have also read of cases in which the Division declined to seek removal or child placement, and a tragedy followed. But despite literally thousands of trial and appellate opinions each year in which the Division's decisions, conduct and recommendations are adopted and affirmed, we have not stopped to recognize the significant work it does to protect, and even save, children every day. The work of the DCPP professionals, case workers and staff members as well as the Deputy Attorneys General who represent the Division, is unbelievably significant. Similarly, we are really privileged that New Jersey has units with staff of professional specialists in the Public Defender's Office who separately represent the parents and the children in abuse and neglect, placement and termination cases, and do it with zeal, skill and professionalism on an on-going basis. And despite the captions in literally hundreds of Appellate Division opinions every year, both published and unpublished, members of the Bar don't stop to recognize this service, which like the Municipal Public Defenders in non-indictable cases with potential sentences of magnitude or consequence, have replaced the need to assign counsel to indigent parents. The Public Defender has provided competent and experienced representation of parents and children, and the rights of both the children and parents have been protected.

We appreciate the expertise and devotion of the participants in the system which is designed to protect the rights of parents and children in our state, including the Family Part Judges, all part of a system in which the important interests of all litigants are well protected.