|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|S061386 (CONTROL) S061387|
|Department of Human Services v. S. M.|
|Franklin High School Case 1|
|Kimberlee Petrie Volm on behalf of R. M.|
Michael Casper on behalf of Oregon Department of Human Services
Statement of Issues:
|Department of Human Services v. S. M. (S061386) (Control) (S061387) (A151376) (appeal from Marion County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 256 Or App 15, 300 P3d 1254 (2013)).|
In this juvenile dependency proceeding, mother and father (who filed separate petitions for review) have been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming a juvenile court's review judgment authorizing the Department of Human Services to immunize mother's and father's children (who previously had been made wards of the court) based on medical advice, over mother's and father's religious objections to the children's immunization.
On review, the issues in both petitions are as follows:
(1) Under ORS 419B.373(4), which provides that a person, agency, or institution having legal custody of a ward has the duty and authority "[t]o authorize ordinary medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, hygienic or other remedial care and treatment for the ward, " does the term "ordinary" mean that which is typical or routine for the general population, or that which is typical or routine for the particular child who is the subject of the dependency proceeding?
(2) If the term "ordinary" in ORS 419B.373 means that which is typical or routine for the general population, is it nevertheless limited to remedial rather than prophylactic care?
(3) Does any provision of the juvenile dependency code confer authority on the department to immunize a parent's child over the parent's objection?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:
David V. Brewer