SJC hears arguments over standard for religious objections to vaccination of children in DCF temporary custody

At an oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, attorneys debated what standard judges should apply when parents object on sincere religious grounds to routine medical care, including vaccinations, for children placed in temporary custody of the Department of Children and Families.

Attorney Kyla Clay, representing the mother, told the justices, “We’re here today because there’s a gap in the law concerning the appropriate standard of review that juvenile courts should apply when a parent objects on sincere religious grounds to routine, non urgent medical care of their child in temporary state custody.” Clay argued that because parents retain constitutional rights under the First Amendment, a parent’s religious objection should receive greater deference than ordinary challenges to DCF custodial decisions and proposed either a strict-scrutiny approach or a balancing test that weighs parental, child and state interests.

Attorney Laura Openshaw, representing the father, said she “share[s] the counsel for the mother's view” and…