A. L. v. G. R. H.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--1273A213,1--1273A213 |
| Citation | 325 N.E.2d 501,163 Ind.App. 636 |
| Parties | , 74 A.L.R.3d 1220 A. L., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. R. H., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John D. Clouse, Evansville, for plaintiff-appellant.
David V. Miller, Frick, Powell & Miller, Evansville, Marcia Pearce Burgdorf, Co-Counsel, South Bend, for defendant-appellee.
A. L. filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking declaration of her right under the common law attributes of the parent-child relationship to have her son, G. R. H., sterilized.
The boy, age fifteen, had suffered brain damage as the result of being struck by an automobile during his early childhood.
Expert testimony indicated that at the time of trial he had an I.Q. of 83. This was described as seven points below the normal range and in the 'dull' or 'borderline' area. Retarded ranges were assertedly below 70. It was stated that the boy had benefitted substantially from the special education program in which he was enrolled and that he appeared capable of further improvement. (His I.Q. two years before the action had tested at 65.) It was the opinion of the experts that he would be capable of earning his own livelihood either in specially supervised work or in entry-level jobs in the general marketplace.
His mental disability would not be transmittable to his offspring. In addition, he had exhibited no behavior from which a propensity to force his attentions on others might be inferred. It was the opinion of his psychiatrist that it was unlikely that G. R. H. would initiate antisocial activity, although his residual brain damage might render him more susceptible to being led into such activities. It was the expert's opinion that G. R. H. was sufficiently intelligent to understand what was involved in sterilization and to participate in the decision making process.
On the other hand, the evidence showed the boy had become interested in girls, that he wanted to date, and liked to kiss. Furthermore, it was shown that most of his female social contact was with other children from his special education classes. It is thus urged that if he impregnates a female, the great likelihood is that it will be one of these retarded or handicapped children.
The evidence at trial did not describe the proposed surgery, except to identify it as a vasectomy. However, from the positions taken by the parties, we are justified in assuming the operation would be simple, virtually painless and irreversible. It would leave G. R. H. unimpaired in his physical ability to have intercourse although he would be rendered permanently sterile.
The trial court denied the mother's right to secure the operation, and this appeal follows.
At the outset, we thank counsel for their excellent efforts in representing a seriously concerned parent and in providing the guardian ad litem defense of the child's interest.
In considering the facts at hand, it should be first noted that we are not dealing with a legislative enactment permitting sterilizations without consent where certain conditions exist. 1
Secondly, the facts do not bring the case within the framework of those decisions holding either that the parents may consent on behalf of the child to medical services necessary for the child, 2 or where the state may intervene over the parents' wishes to rescue the child from parental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conservatorship of N.
...their offspring's fundamental procreative rights." (Matter of A.W., supra, 637 P.2d 366 at p. 370; see also A.L. v. G.R.H. (1975) 163 Ind.App. 636, 325 N.E.2d 501, 502.) Appellants are seeking an "awesome power" to effect an "extreme remedy." (Guardianship of Tulley, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d 69......
-
Parham v. J.R.
...conclusion that parents are not permitted to authorize operations with such far-reaching consequences. See, e. g., A. L. v. G. R. H., 163 Ind.App. 636, 325 N.E.2d 501 (1975); In re M. K. R., 515 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.1974); Frazier v. Levi, 440 S.W.2d 393 19. See Commonwealth v. Renfrew, 332 Mass.......
-
P.S. by Harbin v. W.S.
...I.C. 16-8-4-2. Parents traditionally have had the power to authorize appropriate medical care for their children, see A.L. v. G.R.H. (1975) 163 Ind.App. 636, 325 N.E.2d 501, cert. denied, (1976) 425 U.S. 936, 96 S.Ct. 1669, 48 L.Ed.2d 178. Nevertheless, cases are legion in which the courts ......
-
Grady, Matter of
...Guardianship of Kemp, 43 Cal.App.3d 758, 118 Cal.Rptr. 64 (1974); In re S. C. E., 378 A.2d 144 (Del.Ch.1977); A. L. v. G. R. H., 163 Ind.App. 636, 325 N.E.2d 501 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 936, 96 S.Ct. 1669, 48 L.Ed.2d 178 (1976); Holmes v. Powers, 439 S.W.2d 579 (Ky.Ct.App.1968); In r......