|
|
Mueller v. Idaho
Parents' right to make medical decisions at stake in lawsuit.
A runaway child protective services system is not high on the list of concerns of most civil libertarians these days. But when an infant is seized by state protective services in order to administer a spinal tap -- which even the child's doctor concedes is optional -- it's time to pay attention.
The infant is Taige Mueller, who lives in Boise, Idaho. In August 2002, a few weeks after birth, she came down with a temperature. As a newborn child is especially vulnerable to infection, her doctor advised her mother, Corissa Mueller, to take her to nearby St. Luke's Medical Center.
Corissa -- who has a degree in chemical engineering -- discussed Taige's treatment with the physician, including the risks and benefits of treating her for meningitis. Thinking Taige was suffering the aftereffects of the family's recent bout with the flu, she asked to defer a spinal tap until other, less invasive (and risky) treatments had been tried. The doctor agreed.
Unbeknownst to Corissa, though, the concerns she voiced about the risks
of a spinal tap triggered a call to Child Protective Services, which then
spiraled into the forcible seizure of Taige. The police officers restrained
Corissa (one on each arm) and took her down the hall while the doctor
performed the spinal tap. This despite the fact that, by then, her temperature
had returned to normal. Read more about what happened....
Blanket immunity eliminates accountability
Though child protective services probably conjures up child abuse, what we have here is a case about a difference of opinion between a conscientious mother and an aggressive doctor. To put it another way, Corissa Mueller's "crime" was discussing Taige's treatment step by step and insisting on approving each procedure only when needed.
There is something deeply wrong with a child protective services system that countenances the seizure of a child to preempt further discussion about the risks of an invasive medical procedure. At the root of the problem is the fact that the Idaho child protection law -- and the law of many other states -- immunizes doctors, police and even CPS workers from negligently applying the requirements of the CPS law. One unintended consequence of such immunity is that there is no accountability. City and state officials and even private doctors know there is no penalty for illegally seizing a child, even over a parent's reasonable efforts to direct medical treatment.
Not an isolated problem Over the past twenty years, parents all over the country have discovered the nightmare that the child welfare system can needlessly inflict on families.
Parents know a simple misstep can trigger an investigation where child protection workers exhaustively interview the child, the siblings, the parent and friends and relatives who might have knowledge of child abuse. Parents like the Muellers are subjected to brutally intrusive investigations while true cases of child neglect languish for years, seemingly under the noses of child welfare workers.
It's bad enough when these law are used on the playground or at school. But as the Mueller case shows, child welfare laws like these are downright dangerous when they are injected into hospital emergency rooms. There, parents must carefully make medical decisions that sometimes don't have easy answers.
CIR's fight to restore common sense to child services
In late August, CIR filed suit in federal court in Boise. The Muellers want a court order enjoining the state of Idaho from depriving parents of their constitutional right to oversee the medical care of their children. The Muellers hope to reform the child protection system without destroying the ability of officials to act quickly in cases of true abuse.
Their goal in this case is to restore a measure of accountability to state child protective laws by strengthening federal legal precedents that require state officials to carefully consider the rights of parents. Such accountability will encourage officials to get out of the business of over-investigating parents like the Muellers so that they have the time to investigate and punish those truly responsible for child neglect.
Strengthening the family
This case is about a lot more than the policies and practices of child welfare officials in Boise, Idaho. Much of what we do at CIR is designed to strengthen local institutions like churches, voluntary associations (such as the Boy Scouts), schools and families. By defending strict limits to state interference in these institutions, we are helping to revive the idea of self-government based on the right of individuals to control their own lives.
Any effort to revive the family has got to take account of the legal and regulatory morass in which this institution now must operate. Families cannot function, much less develop and support habits of self government and citizenship if they themselves can be put into bureaucratic receivership at the drop of hat. The best way to protect the family from state interference is by strengthening the individual rights on which it is based -- like the right of parents to make important medical decisions for their children.
Read the complaint (.pdf)
Read press releases:
CIR press release (October 30, 2006) CIR press release (April 18, 2006) CIR press release (August 10, 2005) CIR press release (September 29, 2004)
Read Idaho Statesman article about the case
Learn more about CIR's history, mission and other groundbreaking CIR cases.
Help CIR protect the family: donate to the cause!
 Last
revised:
30-Oct-2006
 
|
|
