Court Got it Right on Compelled Vaccination
We write not only to endorse the Appellate Division opinion, but mostly to publicly state what has been taken for granted by lawyers and the public for years.
June 14, 2019 at 04:17 PM
5 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeet the Judges: Senate Confirms 7 Superior Court Nominees in Final 2024 Session
3 minute readAG Had No Authority to Take Control of Paterson PD, Appellate Division Says
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250