Cude v. State
Decision Date | 06 April 1964 |
Docket Number | 5-3240,Nos. 5-3239,s. 5-3239 |
Citation | 377 S.W.2d 816,237 Ark. 927 |
Parties | Archie CUDE et ux., Appellants, v. The STATE of Arkansas et al., Appellees. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Shaw & Shaw, Mena, for appellants.
Ivan H. Smith, Little Rock, for appellees.
The issue is the authority of the courts to appoint a guardian for children between the ages of 7 and 15, inclusive, who are not attending school, and to give the guardian custody of the children with directions to have them vaccinated to facilitate school attendance.
Appellants, Archie Cude and his wife, Mary Frances, are the parents of eight children, three of whom are between the ages of 7 and 15, inclusive. The children are Wayne Monroe, age 12, Delia Marie, 10, and Linda May, 8. Wayne went only to the second grade; the other two have not attended school at all. The children are not in school for the reason that the school authorities will not permit them to attend school because they have not been vaccinated against smallpox. The Cudes will not permit such vaccinations; they contend that it is contrary to their religion.
This litigation was commenced by Ben Core, Prosecuting Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District of the State of Arkansas, filing in the Probate Court of Polk County, on behalf of the State, a petition alleging that the three Cude children were not attending school; that the father, Archie Cude, had been fined on three occasions for violating the law requiring that parents send their children to school, and he has persisted in his refusal to have the children vaccinated so that they can attend school, and that the father has avowed that he will never permit the children to be vaccinated; that unless the children are removed from the custody of the natural parents they will not have all the benefits and advantages of a school education. The petition asks that the children be placed in the custody of the Child Welfare Division of the State Welfare Department.
The appellants responded, contending first, that the probate court did not have jurisdiction, and further, that vaccination of the children was against respondents' religious beliefs. There was a full scale hearing; it was shown that the children were not attending school because they had not been vaccinated; that the appellants would not permit them to be vaccinated because of their religious beliefs, and appellant, Archie Cude, testified that if the children were taken from him and vaccinated he would not accept them back.
The court appointed Miss Ruth Johnston, Director of the Child Welfare Division of the State Welfare Department, as guardian of the children. The order further provides:
Pursuant to the foregoing order, the guardian, Ruth Johnston, filed a petition in the chancery court asking for custody of the children. Over appellants' protest the petition was granted. The Cudes have appealed.
Actually, there are two appeals; one from the order of the probate court appointing the guardian; the other from the order of the chancery court giving Miss Johnston custody of the children. The cases have been consolidated on appeal.
For the purposes of the appeal, we will assume that the Cudes, in good faith because of their religious beliefs, will not permit the children to be vaccinated. Then the question is whether they have the legal right to prevent vaccination. The answer is that they do not have such right.
There is no question that the laws of this State require parents to send to school their children between the ages of 7 and 15, incluive. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1502 (Repl. 1960) provides: 'Every parent, guardian, or other person residing within the State of Arkansas and having in custody or charge any child or children between the ages of seven and fifteen , (both inclusive) shall send such child or children to a public, private, or parochial school under such penalty for non-compliance with this section as hereinafter provided.'
The school administrative authorities of the State of Arkansas have adopted a regulation requiring vaccination as follows: 'No person shall be entered as a teacher, employee or pupil in a public or private school in this state without having first presented to the principal in charge or the proper authorities, a certificate from a licensed and competent physician of this State certifying that the said teacher, employee or pupil has been successfully vaccinated; or in lieu of a certificate of successful vaccination, a certificate certifying a recent vaccination done in a proper manner by a competent physician; or a certificate showing immunity from having had smallpox. * * *' There is no question about the validity of this regulation. State v. Martin, 134 Ark. 420, 204 S.W. 622; Seubold v. Ft. Smith Special School Dist., 218 Ark. 560, 237 S.W.2d 884.
It is clear that the law requires that the children attend school, and a valid regulation requires that they be vaccinated. The next question is: Are appellants, because of their religion, exempt from the law and the regulation requiring that the children be vaccinated so that they can go to school? It will be remembered that appellants do not object to the children going to school; it is the vaccination that is objectionable to them. But, according to a valid regulation, the children are not permitted to go to school without having been vaccinated.
Article 2, Sec. 24 of the Constitution of Arkansas provides: The foregoing provision of the Constitution means that anyone has the right to worship God in the manner of his own choice, but it does not mean that he can engage in religious practices inconsistent with the peace, safety and health of the inhabitants of the State, and it does not mean that parents, on religious grounds, have the right to deny their children an education.
The U. S. Supreme Court said in Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645:
It is a matter of common knowledge that prior to the development of protection against smallpox by vaccination, the disease, on occasion, ran rampant and caused great suffering and sickness throughout the world. According to the great weight of authority, it is within the police power of the State to require that school children be vaccinated against smallpox, and that such requirement does not violate the constitutional rights of anyone, on religious grounds or otherwise. In fact, this principle is so firmly settled that no extensive discussion is required.
In the early case of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244, the issue was whether a Mormon who believed in polygamy was immune from the operation of the statute forbidding the practice of multiple marriage. There, the court said:
In cases too numerous to mention, it has been held, in effect, that a person's right to exhibit religious freedom ceases where it overlaps and transgresses the rights of others. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith
...laws, see, e.g., Funkhouser v. State, 763 P.2d 695 (Okla.Crim.App.1988), compulsory vaccination laws, see, e.g., Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816 (1964), drug laws, see, e.g., Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 279 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989), and traffic laws, se......
-
State v. DeLaBruere
...or have decided free exercise cases involving their constitutional provision solely on federal precedents. See Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 932, 377 S.W.2d 816, 819 (1964) (relying on federal precedents, court holds that Arkansas Constitution "does not mean that parents, on religious ground......
-
Whitlow v. California, CASE NO. 16cv1715 DMS (MDD)
...107 (1982) (finding state need not "provide a religious exemption from its immunization program."), and Arkansas. Cude v. State , 237 Ark. 927, 932, 377 S.W.2d 816 (1964) (stating smallpox vaccine mandate did "not violate the constitutional rights of anyone, on religious grounds or otherwis......
-
Davis v. Smith
...1070 (1925). Parental rights are not, however, beyond limitation in the public interest. Prince v. Massachusetts, supra; Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S.W.2d 816. The state's constitutional interest extends to the welfare of the child. In re William L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A.2d 1228 (1978).......
-
Lessons from Pharaoh and the Hebrew Midwives: Conscientious Objection to State Mandates as a Free Exercise Right
...U.S. at 888-89. 251. Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971). 252. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982). 253. Cude v. State, 377 S.W.2d 816 (Ark. 1964). 254. Funkhouser v. State, 763 P.2d 695 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). It is misleading for Scalia to cite to this case since the cla......
-
Constitutional Challenges to the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate
...1987); Davis v. State, 451 A.2d 107, 112 n.8 (Md. 1982); Wright v. De Witt Sch. Dist., 385 S.W.2d 644, 646–48 (Ark. 1965); Cude v. State, 377 S.W.2d 816, 819–20 (Ark. 1964); Bd. of Ed. of Mountain Lakes v. Maas, 152 A.2d 394, 404 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1959); Hartman v. May, 151 So. 737, 739 (Mi......
-
Religious Healing in the Courts: the Liberties and Liabilities of Patients, Parents, and Healers
...(discussing right to refuse treatment for patients with dependents). 76. 197 U.S. 11 (1905). 77. Id. at 27. 78. See, e.g., Cude v. State, 377 S.W.2d 816 (Ark. 79. See, e.g., Dalli v. Board of Educ, 267 N.E.2d 219 (Mass. 1971); Davis v. State, 451 A.2d 107 (Md. 1982). 80. Dalli, 267 N.E.2d 2......
-
Calling the Shots: Authorizing Child Welfare Departments to Vaccinate Foster Care Children Despite Parental Objections.
...on religious grounds or otherwise. In fact, this principle is so firmly settled that no extensive discussion is required. Cude v. State, 377 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Ark. 1964); see Hodge & Gostin, supra note 3, at 875-76 (describing continued resistance to vaccination (26.) See Timothy J. Aspi......