In re Elianah T.-T.
Decision Date | 15 August 2017 |
Docket Number | SC 19902 |
Citation | 165 A.3d 1236,326 Conn. 614 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | IN RE ELIANAH T.-T. et al. |
Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, with whom was Joshua Michtom, for the appellants (respondents).
Rosemarie T. Weber, assistant attorney general, with whom were Evan O'Roark, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, George Jepsen, attorney general, and Benjamin Zivyon, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa, Robinson and Vertefeuille, Js.***
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 17a–10 (c)1 authorizes the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), to vaccinate a child placed temporarily in her custody, over the objection of that child's parents. The respondents, Giordan T. and Nicanol T., appeal2 from the decision of the trial court denying their motion seeking to prevent vaccination
of their minor children, Elianah T.-T. and Nathaniel T.-T. On appeal, the respondents claim, inter alia, that § 17a–10 (c) does not authorize the commissioner to vaccinate the children over the respondents' objection because vaccinations do not constitute "medical treatment" within the meaning of that statute.3 We agree with this claim and conclude that vaccinations
are not "medical treatment" as contemplated by § 17a–10 (c). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The Department of Children and Families (department) first became involved with the respondents' family on April 21, 2016, after the Rocky Hill Police Department was called to investigate a physical altercation between the respondents. The department learned from police that the respondents and the children, who were one and two years old at the time, had been living out of a minivan for several months as they moved from Florida to Connecticut, making stops in North Carolina, Colorado, and New York. The police subsequently arrested both respondents for disorderly conduct. Following the respondents' arrest, a social worker from the department met with the children at the police station and observed that they smelled of urine, were filthy, and were covered with multiple bruises. The department then invoked a ninety-six hour hold over the children pursuant to General Statutes § 17a–101g (e). The respondent mother gave the department permission to have the children medically evaluated.4
Thereafter, on April 25, 2016, the commissioner filed neglect petitions as to both of the children and sought ex parte orders of temporary custody. On April 29, 2016, the trial court sustained the orders of temporary custody and ordered specific steps to facilitate reunification of the children with the respondents pursuant to General Statutes § 46b–129. At a hearing held on August 23, 2016, the respondents entered pleas of nolo contendere as to the neglect allegations and agreed to commit the children temporarily to the care and custody of the commissioner. The trial court entered findings of neglect, rendered judgments on the petitions in accordance with the respondents' pleas, and committed the children to the custody of the commissioner. At that hearing, the parties advised the court that the respondents, on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs, objected to vaccination
of the children for common childhood diseases in accordance with the department's usual practice. The respondents then made an oral motion seeking to prevent vaccination, to which the commissioner objected.
On November 17, 2016, the trial court held a one day hearing to determine whether the commissioner had the authority to vaccinate the children in light of the respondents' religious objection. During the hearing, the commissioner presented four witnesses: (1) Iris Thompson, a nurse consultant employed by the department; (2) Stephen Humphrey, a clinical psychologist who had conducted a court ordered evaluation of the respondents; (3) Fredericka Wolman, a pediatrician employed as the department's director of pediatrics; and (4) Jessica Nordlund, a department social worker. Thompson and Humphrey testified that they had communicated with the respondents regarding the immunizations and that the respondents never expressed a religious objection. Wolman testified about the medical importance of immunizations, and Nordlund testified that she had to call numerous physicians before locating one who would treat unvaccinated children. In response, the respondent mother testified about her religious beliefs.
On January 13, 2017, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision denying the respondents' motion and granting the commissioner permission to vaccinate the children. The trial court stated that it "need not reach the issue of [the respondent] mother's religious belief, because the children are committed to the [custody of the commissioner]." The trial court similarly deter-mined that the exemption provided by General Statutes § 10–204a to the state's vaccination
requirement for school children, for religious objections to immunization, did not apply in this case because the children were committed to the care and custody of the commissioner. The court concluded that the crucial issue in this case was the fact that the commissioner had custody of and control over the children, which gave the commissioner "the authority and obligation to vaccinate" them pursuant to § 17a–10 (c). This appeal followed.5 See footnote 2 of this opinion.
On appeal, the respondents claim, inter alia, that § 17a–10 (c) does not authorize the commissioner to vaccinate the children over the respondents' objection because vaccinations
are not "medical treatment" as contemplated by the statute. The respondents contend that the plain language of § 17a–10 (c) indicates that preventative vaccinations are not "medical treatment" because "treatment" is defined as the steps taken to cure an injury or disease. Thus, the respondents argue that the commissioner may authorize "medical treatment" without parental consent only to address an existing injury, illness, or disease. Because the commissioner did not seek to vaccinate the children to cure an existing illness or disease, but rather as a precautionary measure, the respondents contend that such vaccinations
do not fall within the plain language of the statute. Alternatively, the respondents contend that, even if the court deems the phrase "medical treatment" ambiguous, the legislative history of § 17a–10 (c) establishes that the legislature intended the statute to give the commissioner only limited authority to provide medical treatment without parental consent in emergency situations.
In response, the commissioner contends that "[t]he plain language of § 17a–10 (c), very simply, gives the commissioner the authority to provide medical treatment to children in its care, consistent with the child's best interests." In the commissioner's view, § 17a–10 (c) is plain and unambiguous, and the phrase "medical treatment" is commonly understood to include the "mitigat[ion]" of an illness or disease. Accordingly, the commissioner contends that vaccinations
are "medical treatment" because they are a medicine administered by a physician to mitigate against diseases. We, however, agree with the respondents and conclude that vaccinations do not constitute "medical treatment" under § 17a–10 (c).
The issue of whether § 17a–10 (c) authorizes the commissioner to vaccinate children committed to her temporary custody over parental objection presents a question of statutory construction over which we exercise plenary review. Gonzalez v. O & G Industries, Inc. , 322 Conn. 291, 302, 140 A.3d 950 (2016). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 302–303, 140 A.3d 950. Importantly, "ambiguity exists only if the statutory language at issue is susceptible to more than one plausible interpretation." State v. Orr , 291 Conn. 642, 654, 969 A.2d 750 (2009). In other words, "statutory language does not become ambiguous merely because the parties contend for different meanings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Allen v. Commissioner of Revenue Services , 324 Conn. 292, 309, 152 A.3d 488 (2016).
In accordance with § 1–2z, we begin our analysis with the relevant statutory text. Section 17a–10 (c) provides in relevant part: "When deemed in the best interests of a child in the custody of the commissioner, the commissioner, the commissioner's designee, a superintendent or assistant superintendent or, when the child is in transit between department facilities, a designee of the commissioner, may authorize, on the advice of a physician licensed to practice in the state, medical treatment, including surgery , to insure the continued good health or life of the child. ..." (Emphasis added.)
As the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Evans
...the legislature did not intend its amendments to the narcotics statutes to effect substantive changes. See, e.g., In re Elianah T.-T. , 326 Conn. 614, 625 n.10, 165 A.3d 1236 ("[i]t is now well settled that testimony before legislative committees may be considered in determining the particu......
-
Borelli v. Renaldi
...the course of (as a vehicle) ...." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed. 2011) p. 381; see, e.g., In re Elianah T.-T. , 326 Conn. 614, 622, 165 A.3d 1236 (2017) (noting that, pursuant to General Statutes § 1-1 (a), ordinary meaning of word is determined by reference to dictionar......
-
Wind Colebrook S., LLC v. Town of Colebrook
...omitted)). Thus, applying the canon of ejusdem generis would be inconsistent with the legislative history. See In re Elianah T.-T. , 326 Conn. 614, 623, 165 A.3d 1236 (2017) (rule of ejusdem generis applies unless contrary intent appears); see also Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. New London , 273......
-
Conn. Hous. Fin. Auth. v. Alfaro
...because the parties contend for different meanings." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Elianah T.–T. , 326 Conn. 614, 620–21, 165 A.3d 1236 (2017). The term "successfully ... defends" is not defined within § 42–150bb or elsewhere in the General Statutes.10 It is w......
-
Calling the Shots: Authorizing Child Welfare Departments to Vaccinate Foster Care Children Despite Parental Objections.
...(Wood, J., dissenting) (interpreting statute according to its plain meaning first step of statutory construction); In re Elianah T.-T., 165 A.3d 1236, 1242 (Conn. 2017) (interpreting words by plain (159.) See [section] 39.407(2) (detailing circuitous steps to obtain child's vaccination); se......
-
2017 Connecticut Appellate Review
...(2017). [27] 326 Conn. 457, 165 A.3d 1124 (2017). Mr. Bartschi represented the plaintiff. [28] 327 Conn. 312, 173 A.3d 928 (2017). [29] 326 Conn. 614, 165 A.3d 1236 (2017). [30] 327 Conn. 912, 171 A.3d 447 (2017). [31] 173 Conn.App. 389, 164 A.3d 1 (2017). [32] 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1......