Latest news with #TheDCF

Boston Globe

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