In Re J. J.
3 Ohio App. Unrep. 325, 582 N.E.2d 1138, 64 Ohio App. 3d 806 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state may compel a juvenile who has not reached the age of majority to submit to medical treatment for a contagious and potentially life-threatening disease, even if the treatment violates the juvenile's sincerely held religious beliefs.
Facts:
- Fourteen-year-old J.J. was taken to the Middletown Regional Hospital by his mother, D.J., after complaining of pain in his lower abdomen and testicles.
- An attending physician diagnosed J.J. with a severe case of acute gonorrhea.
- The physician advised J.J. and D.J. that if left untreated, the disease could lead to arthritis, sterility, and in some cases, death.
- Both J.J. and D.J. refused medical treatment for J.J., citing their religious beliefs in faith healing.
- J.J. later testified that the decision to refuse medical treatment was his own, and his mother supported his choice.
- J.J. admitted that he was sexually active, making the disease a communicable risk to others.
Procedural Posture:
- The attending physician contacted the Butler County Children Services Board ('Board').
- The Board filed a complaint in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, alleging that J.J. was a dependent child.
- Following an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found J.J. to be a dependent child.
- At a subsequent dispositional hearing, the court ordered J.J. to undergo medical treatment and ordered his mother, D.J., to pay the costs.
- J.J. and D.J. (appellants) appealed the juvenile court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a minor's refusal, based on personal religious beliefs, to accept necessary medical treatment for a contagious disease justify a court's finding that the minor is a dependent child, thereby allowing the state to compel treatment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A minor's refusal to accept necessary medical treatment for a contagious disease based on religious beliefs is sufficient grounds for a court to adjudicate the minor a dependent child and compel treatment. While the First Amendment protects religious freedom, the freedom to act is not absolute and is subject to regulation for the protection of society. The state has broader authority to regulate the activities of children than adults, and a juvenile under the age of majority has not reached the age of full and legal discretion to make such a choice for themselves. The state's compelling interests in protecting the child from ill health or death and in preventing the spread of a highly communicable disease to the community outweigh the minor's religious objections.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the state's dual roles as parens patriae (protector of the child) and protector of public health. It establishes a clear distinction between the rights of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds and the more limited rights of a minor. The ruling affirms that a minor's religious freedom does not extend to decisions that pose a grave and immediate danger to their own life or to the health of the community. This case sets a precedent that the legal age of majority serves as a bright-line rule for when an individual can make religiously-motivated medical refusal decisions that have serious public health consequences.
