Skip to main content

In re I.S.

Citations

  • 2022 Ohio 3923

Syllabus

Neglect protective supervision medical care medical treatment surgery patent ductus arteriosus PDA congenital heart defect First Amendment religious freedom parental rights life threatening ill health catheterization. The juvenile court's adjudication of neglect was supported by sufficient evidence where the agency presented medical evidence that (1) a minor — who was two years old and had Down syndrome — was experiencing several medical conditions including a congenital heart defect that were likely contributing to significant weight loss and a failure to thrive that the minor's pediatrician believed could be life threatening and (2) the minor's mother had not followed the medical recommendations of the minor's pediatrician by undergoing medical testing and consulting with specialists. The juvenile court's dispositional order placing the minor under protective supervision and ordering the minor to undergo a catheterization procedure over his mother's objection was not an abuse of discretion where two teams of medical professionals — representing several relevant specialties and from two different hospital systems — opined that (1) the minor's congenital heart condition was putting additional stress on his organs and put the minor at significantly increased risk for developing chronic respiratory disease and (2) the condition could be fixed through a relatively non-invasive catheterization procedure. The minor's guardian ad litem had also advocated for the procedure as in the minor's best interest. The child's mother objected to the procedure because her sincerely held religious beliefs forbid the procedure. We balanced the mother's fundamental interest in directing the upbringing of her child with the state's interest in protecting the health and wellbeing of the minor. In doing so, we considered all relevant factors, including but not limited to the following: (1) the nature and seriousness of the child's medical condition, (2) the effectiveness of the proposed in

Judges: E.A. Gallagher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.