Nj Dyfs. v. Lv
889 A.2d 1153, 382 N.J. Super. 582 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mother's refusal to take prescribed medication during pregnancy to reduce the risk of harm to her fetus does not constitute child abuse or neglect unless there is proof of actual harm or suffering to the child after birth resulting from that refusal.
Facts:
- L.V., the mother, learned she was HIV positive for the first time while she was pregnant with her child, C.M.
- A nurse practitioner, Ann M. Scanlon-Smith, advised L.V. to take antiretroviral medication, which would reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to the baby from 28% to 7%.
- Struggling to accept her diagnosis, L.V. failed to take the prescribed medication with any regularity during her pregnancy.
- On January 10, 2005, L.V. gave birth to C.M., who was exposed to the HIV virus.
- The evidence at the hearing showed that C.M. suffered from other serious health problems unrelated to HIV.
- There was no evidence presented that C.M. actually tested positive for HIV or suffered any physical harm or impairment as a result of the exposure to the virus.
Procedural Posture:
- The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) filed an abuse and neglect action against the mother, L.V., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County.
- The court conducted a fact-finding hearing on June 9 and July 14, 2005, to determine if L.V. had abused or neglected her child, C.M.
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 an HIV-positive mother's refusal to take medication during pregnancy to reduce the risk of perinatal transmission, without evidence of actual harm to the child after birth, constitute child abuse or neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothstadt, J.S.C.
No, a mother's refusal to take medication during pregnancy to reduce risk to the fetus does not constitute child abuse or neglect without resulting post-birth harm to the child. The New Jersey child abuse and neglect statute protects a 'child,' not a fetus, so its protections apply only after birth. For prenatal conduct to rise to the level of abuse or neglect, there must be attendant suffering or injury to the child post-birth, as seen in cases where a baby is born addicted to drugs. Here, there was no evidence that the baby suffered any harm from the mother's decision. Furthermore, a competent pregnant woman has a constitutional right to privacy, which includes the right to refuse medical treatment for her own body. The state cannot use the child abuse statute to interfere with this right by compelling a woman to accept medical treatment during her pregnancy. The mother's decision, while perhaps not what another would have made, was a protected choice regarding her own medical care.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a pregnant woman's constitutional right to bodily autonomy and the right to refuse medical treatment, even when it poses a potential risk to the fetus. It establishes that in New Jersey, a finding of child abuse or neglect based on prenatal conduct requires proof of a causal link to actual, post-birth harm. The ruling creates a significant hurdle for child protective services seeking to intervene based solely on a mother's lawful choices during pregnancy, distinguishing such choices from illicit acts like illegal drug use that result in demonstrable harm to the newborn.
