Parental Rights
The right of parental decision-making is often related to religious freedom as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Interpretation of this freedom is controversial, especially when parental decisions involve the health care of the children. It has long been settled that the majority of courts will not uphold the parent’s religious rights when the life or physical safety of a child is threatened. When the issue, however, is one of quality of life and not life or death, the balancing of interests between religious freedom and the state’s interest in the health and welfare of the child becomes more difficult.
The Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. has been interpreted to protect interests of the parents in the management of their children and a corresponding duty to provide care. This includes the role of parents as decision-makers for their child’s medical care because (1) parents are assumed to act in the best interest of the child due to “natural bonds of affection (Prince v. Massachusetts, 1943); (2) children are incapable of making decisions on their own regarding medical care (Rosato, 1996); (3) parents are usually responsible for the cost of medical treatments (Parham v. J.R., 1979) and (4) because parents are presumed to possess maturity and capacity to make decisions.
The Free Exercise Clause has frequently been invoked by parents who wish to refuse medical therapy for their children. Success of this claim is often upheld provided the child is not in a life threatening situation. For example, in In Re Seithfert (309 N.Y. 80, 1955) the court refused to compel surgery for a child with a cleft lip and palate over his father’s religious objections. The same sediment was echoed in In Re Green (448 Pa. 338, 1972) when the court refused to order corrective spinal surgery on a child over the parent’s objections due to religious grounds. The court held, “as between a parent and the state, the state does not have an interest of sufficient magnitude out weighing a parent’s religious beliefs when the child’s life is not immediately imperiled by his physical condition.” Parental rights to religious freedom have also been upheld in cases where the child is seriously ill.