Parham v. JR - Lecture notes 11 PDF

Preview

Summary

St Johns Law 2020 Family Law Course; Professor Jennifer Baum; Case Brief and Lecture Notes from course materials...

Description

FAMILY LAW FALL 2020 CASE BRIEF/LECTURE NOTES

Parham v. JR –CHILD VERSUS PARENT UNLIKE OTHER CASES. a) Parent versus state. Presumably parent and child on same side in most cases b) This case is parent versus child. i) Parents are presumed to act in the best interests of the child, parents are giving child a preference, not so much state versus parent, the court is deciding within a family who gets to make the decisions. ii) State is coming in as parents patria and the court says we are not prepared to go that far, give a little stuff but it is really just we are prepared to presume, the parent is acting in child’s best interest and parent gets priority absent some other circumstances. iii) Where do you draw the line? 2) HYPO a) Spina bifida, given the locating of opening, paralysis of lower part of her body, and child can suffer bladder problems, need to be treated within 3 or 4 days, operation is going to be the first of many and child will suffer from severe physical handicap. b) The child suffers from hydrosefalis, this condition can cause brain damage, c) In the real case, someone intervenes to force the hospital to do the surgery, to put the shunt in the brain and close the spina bifida. d) Hospital gives parent e) Doctor gives them 2 options, surgery or die. f) We had 2 testimony in front of judge, court reporters coming in, transcript, judge had AD on standby, 3 doctors and described options, if did nothing child only going to live a few weeks, if they did the surgery but they believe the child would be mentally challenged. g) Judge ordered the surgery, doctors gave the parents 2 options of passive treatment so it was a medically accepted option, judge there should be no intervention, and AD reversed said no surgery and AD had any standing. h) Parents did not accept the surgery, 9 months later surgery done,

3) Parent only has to provide minimal care, parents are following a medical option, supreme court in riverhead, where hospital needed standby authority for a Jehovah witness child, no option, 4) NY standard is minimally adequate care –parent is presumed to be providing the care unless it isn’t, when is t he care not adequate, when the parent has risked some danger, like case where child was removed from custody and kids were living in a dirty house—house was where mother was living process servers looked bad and the siblings were there but it was disgusting, inadequate toilet facilities, vermin, plumbing....