Parents' religious beliefs must be followed in temporary DCF custody cases, SJC says
Advertisement
The SJC said it was resting its decision on the state constitution while acknowledging that parents also had a parallel First Amendment right to practice their faith as they see fit.
The court said it had never before decided how to balance the parents' 'residual constitutional rights' with DCF's 'compelling interest' to protect the health of children in its temporary custody by getting them vaccinated.
The SJC noted Thursday's ruling reached a starkly different conclusion than a
The key issue in the current case, the court said, was that placement with DCF in this case - and others like it - was short-term, not a permanent extinguishing of the couple's parental rights.
Advertisement
'We are aware of no case extinguishing parental free exercise rights in this context,' Kafker wrote. 'A temporary loss of custody is just that.'
The high court ruling came in the case of a child called Eve whose parents
The DCF sought custody before Eve was born, and in the Juvenile Court litigation that followed said they were going to have the child vaccinated in keeping with a pediatric standard of care.
The parents objected on the grounds that Rastafarians do not rely on Western medicine (except in life or death situations) and would give a child herbs to treat a headache or give elderberries and a bath to a child with a high fever, the SJC said.
'In the parents view, 'you're not supposed to put anything inside your body outside of what nature has already given you because it goes against God's plan.' ' Kafker wrote.
The child was vaccinated, but the SJC ruling prevents DCF from going forward with others.
In the decision, the SJC noted that state law contains a religious exemption from vaccination for parents whose children are not in temporary DCF custody.
Further, while DCF claimed it was acting in the best interest of Eve if she were protected against significant illnesses through vaccination, the child protection agency, at the same time, did not require the three older children to be vaccinated.
Advertisement
'The department has not demonstrated that leaving this child unvaccinated would substantially hinder the department's compelling interests,' Kafker wrote.
John R. Ellement can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
12 hours ago
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. -- Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Adameve.com Asks "Do Your Sex Dreams Provide a Happy Ending?"
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Adam & Eve and America's most trusted source for adult products, are back again this month with a follow-up to last month's question from their all-new annual sex survey. This month, the sex-positive company asked adults who'd had a sex dream if they ever resulted in a happy ending. And they were only too happy to share! Last month, shared that 81% of the adult population (85% of males and 78% of females) said they experience sexual dreams. This month, we reveal that 59% of those who have erotic dreams (68% of males and 50% of females) say they experience orgasm as part of the dream. "Just as sex dreams are common and natural, orgasm during sex dreams is a normal and healthy occurrence," says Dr. Jenni Skyler, PhD, LMFT, C-PST, and resident sexologist at Adam & Eve. "Often referred to as a nocturnal emission in men, and a sleep-related orgasm in women, the experiences occur during REM sleep when breathing and heart rate increase. This increases blood flow throughout the body - including the genitals – and can make them hypersensitive to stimulation of any kind." "For over 50 years, Adam & Eve has provided a variety of toys and accessories for cheerfully consenting adults. Adam & Eve encourages adults to celebrate their sexuality within their own comfort levels and are happy to offer enhancements for any relationship at any stage," says Chad Davis, Director of Marketing for Adam & Eve. The web-based survey, conducted by an independent third party survey company, of over 1,000 American adults ages 18 and up, was sponsored by Adam & Eve to study sexual preferences and practices. For more information about Adam & Eve, visit their website, For additional information on Adam & Eve, please contact Adam & Eve Director of Public Relations Katy Zvolerin at 919.644.8100 x 3121 or 396330@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
