jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,887
Hello Lesa Dawn,
I see you had to repeat some stuff for me that you had said earlier. Sorry for missing that.
One point on the "best interest of the child" standard. Courts can factor in things that are perfectly constitutional for you to do in determining that they are not in your child's "best interest". And courts can and do get it wrong. Sometimes a higher court will overturn a ruling because they decided the lower court abused its discretion in applying the standard.
Also I don't think you're a bad mother (from what you've described) or that your child would be better off with his dad. But it doesn't matter what I think. My reason for asking the questions is to understand what "reasoning" the court used, as screwed up as it may be. That's the only way I know to fight this.
Interesting Supreme Court case you posted. It's definitely helpful. I was hoping to find a holding directly on vaccination that said the same thing with regards to vaccination and religious exemptions.
Sorry for the long read on I posted. This was the part that is really important to your case:
In Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District,148 a federal district court upheld an exemption for children of parents with “sincere religious beliefs,” but found a provision requiring them to be “bona fide members of a recognized religious organization” in violation of the Establishment Clause. Other courts have found inapposite. A federal district court in Kentucky, for example, held that exemption for “nationally recognized and established church or religious denomination” did not violate the Establishment Clause.149
To the extent that statutory religious exemptions to school vaccination laws discriminate against persons with non-established religious beliefs, it has been argued that the provisions violate equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.150 The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government from intentionally discriminating against individuals of suspect classes (e.g., classes based on race, religion, national origin, or sex). In Dalli v. Board of Education,151 a Massachusetts state court found that a state exemption for objectors who subscribe to “tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination” violates equal protection by extending preferred treatment to these groups while denying it to others with sincere, though unrecognized, religious objections. In Brown v. Stone,152 the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a religious exemption violates equal protection of the laws because it “discriminates against the great majority of children whose parents have no such religious
convictions.”
This is from page 41 and 42 of what I posted earlier.
http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Research/PDF/vaccine.pdf
Note that none of the cases I cited are Supreme Court cases so the aren't binding in Missouri, but they might be persuasive.
You asked "What is a Pantheist"? A Pantheist is someone who believes God is in everything. (I know I'm not giving the belief justice.) The important thing to note for this discussion is that it's not a religion with any structure. (At least not in the U.S. according to the trial testimony). So neither mother could say "My Pantheistic religion teaches that we can't get vaccines"?
Now I'm not arguing that the courts should look at the sincerity of religious beliefs. Just pointing out what one federal court held in one case. If your going to use this defense, the stronger you can argue about the religious sincerity of this belief the better off you are. A belief that vaccines will affect your child's soul salvation is more persuasive under current law than a sincere belief that it might irreparably harm his health. (Stupid I know. But that's current law.)
But that's not the only angle you can take.
Again it's important to know precisely what statute the court made it's ruling under. You've mentioned "medical neglect" a couple of times. I found this:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2100000166.htm
The division of family services, any juvenile officer, any physician licensed under chapter 334, RSMo, any hospital or other health care institution, and any other person or institution authorized by state or federal law to provide medical care may bring an action in the circuit court in the county where any child under eighteen years of age resides or is located, alleging the child is suffering from the denial or deprivation, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child, of medical or surgical treatment or intervention which is necessary to remedy or ameliorate a medical condition which is life-threatening or causes injury......
Not being vaccinated is (arguably) not a "life-threatening" condition. Just look at the lifespan of the Amish. Also if not being vaccinated is "life-threatening" then how can the state justify not requiring vaccinations for children who are not enrolled in "public, parochial or private" schools?
I also found this. (The religious exemption for the medical neglect law).
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2100000115.htm
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of sections 210.109 to 210.183, any child who does not receive specified medical treatment by reason of the legitimate practice of the religious belief of the child's parents, guardian, or others legally responsible for the child, for that reason alone, shall not be found to be an abused or neglected child, and such parents, guardian or other persons legally responsible for the child shall not be entered into the central registry. However, the division may accept reports concerning such a child and may subsequently investigate or conduct a family assessment as a result of that report. Such an exception shall not limit the administrative or judicial authority of the state to ensure that medical services are provided to the child when the child's health requires it.
Last point. I agree with your lawyer. You are being railroaded. But in order to avoid the train you need to know what track it's on. Good luck and God bless!
I see you had to repeat some stuff for me that you had said earlier. Sorry for missing that.
One point on the "best interest of the child" standard. Courts can factor in things that are perfectly constitutional for you to do in determining that they are not in your child's "best interest". And courts can and do get it wrong. Sometimes a higher court will overturn a ruling because they decided the lower court abused its discretion in applying the standard.
Also I don't think you're a bad mother (from what you've described) or that your child would be better off with his dad. But it doesn't matter what I think. My reason for asking the questions is to understand what "reasoning" the court used, as screwed up as it may be. That's the only way I know to fight this.
Interesting Supreme Court case you posted. It's definitely helpful. I was hoping to find a holding directly on vaccination that said the same thing with regards to vaccination and religious exemptions.
Sorry for the long read on I posted. This was the part that is really important to your case:
In Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District,148 a federal district court upheld an exemption for children of parents with “sincere religious beliefs,” but found a provision requiring them to be “bona fide members of a recognized religious organization” in violation of the Establishment Clause. Other courts have found inapposite. A federal district court in Kentucky, for example, held that exemption for “nationally recognized and established church or religious denomination” did not violate the Establishment Clause.149
To the extent that statutory religious exemptions to school vaccination laws discriminate against persons with non-established religious beliefs, it has been argued that the provisions violate equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.150 The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government from intentionally discriminating against individuals of suspect classes (e.g., classes based on race, religion, national origin, or sex). In Dalli v. Board of Education,151 a Massachusetts state court found that a state exemption for objectors who subscribe to “tenets and practice of a recognized church or religious denomination” violates equal protection by extending preferred treatment to these groups while denying it to others with sincere, though unrecognized, religious objections. In Brown v. Stone,152 the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a religious exemption violates equal protection of the laws because it “discriminates against the great majority of children whose parents have no such religious
convictions.”
This is from page 41 and 42 of what I posted earlier.
http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Research/PDF/vaccine.pdf
Note that none of the cases I cited are Supreme Court cases so the aren't binding in Missouri, but they might be persuasive.
You asked "What is a Pantheist"? A Pantheist is someone who believes God is in everything. (I know I'm not giving the belief justice.) The important thing to note for this discussion is that it's not a religion with any structure. (At least not in the U.S. according to the trial testimony). So neither mother could say "My Pantheistic religion teaches that we can't get vaccines"?
Now I'm not arguing that the courts should look at the sincerity of religious beliefs. Just pointing out what one federal court held in one case. If your going to use this defense, the stronger you can argue about the religious sincerity of this belief the better off you are. A belief that vaccines will affect your child's soul salvation is more persuasive under current law than a sincere belief that it might irreparably harm his health. (Stupid I know. But that's current law.)
But that's not the only angle you can take.
Again it's important to know precisely what statute the court made it's ruling under. You've mentioned "medical neglect" a couple of times. I found this:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2100000166.htm
The division of family services, any juvenile officer, any physician licensed under chapter 334, RSMo, any hospital or other health care institution, and any other person or institution authorized by state or federal law to provide medical care may bring an action in the circuit court in the county where any child under eighteen years of age resides or is located, alleging the child is suffering from the denial or deprivation, by those responsible for the care, custody, and control of the child, of medical or surgical treatment or intervention which is necessary to remedy or ameliorate a medical condition which is life-threatening or causes injury......
Not being vaccinated is (arguably) not a "life-threatening" condition. Just look at the lifespan of the Amish. Also if not being vaccinated is "life-threatening" then how can the state justify not requiring vaccinations for children who are not enrolled in "public, parochial or private" schools?
I also found this. (The religious exemption for the medical neglect law).
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c200-299/2100000115.htm
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of sections 210.109 to 210.183, any child who does not receive specified medical treatment by reason of the legitimate practice of the religious belief of the child's parents, guardian, or others legally responsible for the child, for that reason alone, shall not be found to be an abused or neglected child, and such parents, guardian or other persons legally responsible for the child shall not be entered into the central registry. However, the division may accept reports concerning such a child and may subsequently investigate or conduct a family assessment as a result of that report. Such an exception shall not limit the administrative or judicial authority of the state to ensure that medical services are provided to the child when the child's health requires it.
Last point. I agree with your lawyer. You are being railroaded. But in order to avoid the train you need to know what track it's on. Good luck and God bless!
and not much does these days.
