Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Justices send back case on immunizing child in state care

- MICHAEL R. WICKLINE

LITTLE ROCK — In a 4-3 ruling, the Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a circuit judge’s denial of a mother’s request to stop the state Department of Human Services from immunizing her daughter, who was in foster care.

The state’s divided high court sent the case back to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Patricia James for further proceeding­s consistent with the court’s ruling.

Alexius Macklin appealed an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court regarding her 1-year-old daughter, M.S., who was neglected, according to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Macklin didn’t challenge the adjudicati­on itself, but challenged the circuit court’s denial of her motion to bar the department from immunizing M.S. over her objection.

In her appeal, Macklin argued the Department of Human Services, as the temporary custodian of a child, doesn’t have the authority to immunize the child over the religious or philosophi­cal objections of the parent.

At the Sept, 21, 2020, adjudicati­on hearing, Dr. Karen Farst, a pediatrici­an employed by Arkansas Children’s Hospital, testified as an expert witness for the department. She was called to testify regarding M.S.’s admission to the hospital and the circumstan­ces forming the basis for the child’s removal from Macklin’s custody.

But the issue of the child’s immunizati­on arose. Farst, the child’s attending physician, asked the Department of Human Services for permission to immunize, but permission was denied. The department was aware Macklin had a philosophi­cal/ religious objection to immunizati­on and didn’t provide consent.

Farst testified she believed immunizati­ons were in the “best interest” of a child and protection from common and infectious diseases is what dictated “best interest.”

Nonetheles­s, she acknowledg­ed Arkansas allows for both philosophi­cal and religious exemptions and she had seen the exercise of those exemptions in her practice.

Latrinia Joyner, supervisor for the state Division of Child and Family Services’ Pulaski County South office, testified she was aware her superiors at the Department of Human Services intended to immunize M.S. if an

upcoming evaluation — a comprehens­ive medical assessment provided to all children in the state’s custody — recommende­d it.

The assessment was to be done by the Project for Adolescent and Child Evaluation. The group contracts with the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences for every child to have the assessment within 60 days of removal from the home, said Department of Human Services spokeswoma­n Amy Webb.

The circuit judge declined to rule the Department of Human Services is prohibited from immunizing the child but found the department can make medical decisions in the best interest of the child as the department is the legal custodian of the juvenile.

In an opinion authored by Justice Barbara Webb, the state Supreme Court said, “We are mindful that the General Assembly has promoted the widespread vaccinatio­n of children in this state and has made receiving age-appropriat­e immunizati­ons a condition for admittance to licensed day care centers, public or private schools.

“However, in enacting this wide-reaching immunizati­on mandate, the General Assembly has also provided for exemptions from immunizati­on if ‘ the parents or legal guardian of that child object thereto on the grounds that immunizati­on conflicts with religious or philosophi­cal beliefs of the parent or guardian.’”

The court said the Legislatur­e has recognized the state’s interest in promoting the health and safety of its children must yield to the rights of parents to make fundamenta­l decisions in the lives of their offspring.

Macklin exercised her right to exempt her daughter from immunizati­on, as was her right as a parent, according to the court.

“It is the role of the General Assembly, not the courts, to establish public policy,” the court said. “We therefore reverse and remand this case for further proceeding­s consistent with this opinion.”

Chief Justice Dan Kemp and Justices Robin Wynne and Shawn Womack agreed with Webb’s majority opinion.

Justices Karen Baker, Courtney Hudson and Rhonda Wood dissented.

In her dissenting opinion, Wood wrote the Supreme Court applies the law and doesn’t make the law.

“Here, the General Assembly placed only three limits on the type of medical care that requires a court order when a child is in foster care: removal of bodily organs; withholdin­g life- saving or life-sustaining treatment; and amputation,” she said. “That’s it. Vaccinatio­ns were simply not on the list. That was the only issue for the juvenile court to decide.”

Wood wrote the juvenile court refused to enter a court order to immunize or not to immunize because the Legislatur­e hadn’t assigned it that role.

“It’s not our job either,” she said.

“We cannot take a piece of legislatio­n, decide it’s lousy and rewrite it,” Wood said. “If the statute reflects poor policy, the people of Arkansas, through their elected representa­tives, must act. I believe the people want us to remain faithful to our judicial role.”

Macklin exercised her right to exempt her daughter from immunizati­on, as was her right as a parent, according to the court.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States