Baker v. Crossroads Acad.-Cent. St.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | WD 84941 |
| Citation | 648 S.W.3d 790 |
| Parties | Audrey BAKER, et al., Appellants, v. CROSSROADS ACADEMY-CENTRAL STREET, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Linus Baker, Stilwell, KS, Counsel for Appellants.
Angus Dwyer, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondent, Crossroads.
Stephanie Lovett-Bowman, Kansas City, MO, Co-Counsel for Respondent, Crossroads.
Timothy Ertz, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondent, Archer.
Amy Fitts, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Respondent, Casey.
Miriam Bailey, Kansas City, MO, Co-Counsel for Respondent, Casey.
Jesus Osete, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent, MO. Dept. of Health.
Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, P.J., Edward R. Ardini, Jr. and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.
G.B., J.B., and W.B., and their parents, Zach and Audrey Baker, (collectively "the Bakers") appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County dismissing with prejudice their petition against a school and various school, city, county, and state officials alleging that Missouri vaccination
and exemption regulations for school children, and their enforcement, violate constitutional provisions and federal and state laws. They raise six points on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.
Missouri law requires all students to be immunized and provide proof of such immunizations. § 167.181.2.2 Exemptions based on religious beliefs are given if a parent or guardian objects in writing to the school administrator. § 167.181.3.3 The Department of Health & Senior Services ("DHSS") promulgates rules and regulations governing the required immunization program and supervises and secures its enforcement. § 167.181.1.4 To assert a religious exemption from the school children vaccination
requirement, a parent's exemption statement "must be provided on an original Department of Health and Senior Services’ form Imm.P.11A" ("Form 11"). 19 C.S.R. § 20-28.010(1)(C)(2). A Form 11 "may be obtained by contacting a medical provider, local public health agency, or the department's Bureau of Immunization Assessment and Assurance at PO Box 570, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0570, or by calling 800-219-3224." Id. The form contains the following language:
The form also contains a section for a parent's election of religious exemption.
On December 29, 2019, the Bakers filed their underlying lawsuit against Crossroads Academy-Central Street ("Crossroads"), Karis Parker, Crossroads’ principal, and Eva Copeland, Crossroads’ school nurse (collectively "Crossroads Defendants"); Rex Archer, in his official capacity as Director of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Health Department ("City Health"), and Bridgette Casey, in her official capacity as Director of the Jackson County Health Department ("County Health") (collectively "Health Departments"); and Randall Williams, in his official capacity as Director for the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services ("DHSS"), and Eric Schmitt, in his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General ("AG") (collectively "State Defendants").5 In their petition, they alleged that, since as early as 2017, the three Baker children have attended Crossroads Charter School unvaccinated based on their parents’ providing to the school's administrator a written objection to vaccinations
on religious grounds, which the school accepted. They further alleged that Crossroads later "changed policies and demanded that the Bakers" again provide "their religious objections to vaccinations for each child," but this time on an original DHSS Form 11. The Bakers claimed that the Form 11 "was only obtainable from a local health department who then requires a parent to make an appointment, then watch a pro-vaccine video, or be questioned by a nurse as a condition to obtaining the form." The Bakers alleged that, at the beginning of the 2019 school year, Audrey Baker provided the school administrator with a handwritten note stating, "PURSUANT TO MISSOURI STATUTE 167.181, I AM MAKING A RELIGIOUS OBJECTION TO VACCINATIONS
ON BEHALF OF MY CHILD AND AM GIVING IT TO THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR. I AM WILLING TO FILL OUT A FORM IF THE SCHOOL PROVIDES IT TO ME WHICH THEY WILL NOT DO." She provided another written objection on a printed Form 11 she found online, which was watermarked "Sample". The school rejected the two written objections, and informed her that an original Form 11 must be completed otherwise the children would be not be allowed to attend. The Bakers alleged that the children were expelled from the school and are being denied an education.
The Bakers’ 20-count petition asserted a variety of state and federal statutory and constitutional claims, based on alleged violations of the Bakers’ rights to (1) free exercise of religion, (2) first amendment speech, (3) a child's bodily integrity and autonomy, (4) the parental right to consent, to make medical decisions, and to direct the upbringing according to religious conviction, and (5) equal protection. Because the lawsuit asserted numerous claims under federal law, it was removed to the federal district court. The federal district court ultimately dismissed the federal statutory and constitutional claims.6 It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remanded the case back to the trial court. The trial court recognized in its judgments that the federal statutory and constitutional claims had been dismissed by the federal court.
The parties filed various motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, and motions for summary judgment regarding the remaining state law claims. After entering numerous orders and judgments, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims and dismissed the Bakers’ petition with prejudice on October 8, 2021. Relevant to this appeal, on November 10, 2020, the trial court entered judgment granting the Health Departments’ motions to dismiss based on lack of standing. On June 16, 2021, the trial court entered judgment granting DHSS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed with prejudice count 6 alleging that Missouri's vaccine statute, DHSS regulations and practices, and local health department practices all violate the Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). On October 8, 2021, it also entered judgment granting DHSS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed with prejudice count 1 alleging that DHSS regulation 19 C.S.R. section 20-28.010 improperly modifies and expands the scope of section 167.181.3 and is ultra vires, count 2 alleging that the DHSS regulations and practices violate the unbridled discretion doctrine, and count 5 alleging that the statutory scheme requiring vaccination
of school children and the process for religious exemptions violate the Missouri Constitution. Finally, on October 8, 2021, the trial court granted Crossroads’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice count 19 for declaratory judgment asking the trial court to declare that section 167.181 and the associated regulations regarding Form 11 violate the Missouri Constitution. This appeal by the Bakers followed.
Appellate review of the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss is de novo. Mo. Mun. League v. State , 489 S.W.3d 765, 767 (Mo. banc 2016). "[T]he appellate court reviews the petition[ ] in an almost academic manner[ ] to determine if the facts alleged meet the elements of a recognized cause of action, or of a cause that might be adopted in that case." Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted). Similar to a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings tests whether the non-moving party's facts, which are presumed to be true, are nevertheless insufficient as a matter of law. Id. at 767-68. Judgment on the pleadings is proper if, from the face of the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 768.
In their first point on appeal, the Bakers contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their petition against the Health Departments for lack of standing. They assert that they had standing because DHSS "improperly deputized" the Health Departments to enforce the requirement that the Bakers obtain the original Form 11 and changed the regulations to make the Form 11 only available to parents at local health departments. They argue that "[t]here can be a ripe controversy before the Health Department imposes its original form 11 gauntlet upon" them.
"Standing is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo. " Vowell v. Kander , 451 S.W.3d 267, 271 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotes and citation omitted). It is determined as a matter of law on the basis of the petition along with other non-contested facts accepted as true by the parties at the time the motion to dismiss was argued. Id.
"Plaintiffs seeking declaratory relief must...
To continue reading
Request your trial