17-year-old CT girl taken from mother, forced to endure unwanted chemotherapy

[rambone]

A 17-year-old girl has been turned into a ward of the state and forced to endure unwanted chemo treatments that she absolutely opposes.

When Cassandra C.'s mother, Jackie Fortin, sought a second opinion about surgically removing her daughter's lymph nodes, the control-freak doctors of Connecticut Children's Medical Center reported her to DCF for "parental medical neglect."

A court authorized DCF "to make all necessary medical decisions on Cassandra's behalf," the case summary states.

Subsequently Cassandra was kidnapped by the state and forced to have surgery. They literally strapped her to a bed, penetrated her with needles, and injected her with chemopoison.



Connecticut Teen Taken Away from Mother and Physically Forced to have Chemotherapy

Lawyer for teen fighting state over forced chemo says prognosis is good, but larger constitutional question looms - Hartford Courant

 

[rambone]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Already at the CT Supreme Court? Does CT have some sort of fast track for a case such as this?

 

[T.Lex]

Wonder if it is too late to have her emancipated?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Already at the CT Supreme Court? Does CT have some sort of fast track for a case such as this?

Wouldn't something like stage 3/4 lymphoma kinda warrant expedited hearing?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wonder if it is too late to have her emancipated?

I thought the same thing. The obvious solution was to have a consensual emancipation. However, I think the JS (runaway) shot that in the behind.

 

[T.Lex]

Ah, right. The Ct. Sup. Ct. play might be for mandamus? If it is a regular appeal, there's probably a corollary to the Indiana rule that allows a petitioner to seek transfer straight from the Ct. of App., before they even hear it.

In. App. R. 56(a)

In rare cases, the Supreme Court may, upon verified motion of a party, accept jurisdiction over an appeal that would otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals upon a showing that the appeal involves a substantial question of law of great public importance and that an emergency exists requiring a speedy determination.

I've only seen it work 1 time in Indiana.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've only seen it work 1 time in Indiana.

Me, never.

Wow, that Justina case has their attention to be certain.

 

[T.Lex]

Total derail, and the opinion doesn't mention the procedure, but Sowers v. State:
SOWERS v. STATE - FindLaw

Interloc in death penalty case. Issue presented: curtilage.

On a sidenote, I think the Indianapolis/Marion County redistricting skipped the appellate court straight to the supremes.

 

[rambone]

Judicial Branch summary




Docket No. 19426

IN RE CASSANDRA C., SC 19426
Child Protection Session at Middletown

Juveniles; Child Protection; Whether DCF Properly Authorized to Make Medical Decisions on Child’s Behalf; Whether Seventeen Year Old must Receive Medical Treatment Against her Wishes. Seventeen year old Cassandra was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma in September, 2014. While the recommended treatment for the disease includes chemotherapy, Cassandra decided that she did not want to undergo treatment, and Cassandra’s mother supports her in that decision. In November, 2014, the trial court granted the petition of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for an order of temporary custody of Cassandra and directed her mother to provide and cooperate with medical care under DCF’s supervision and as recommended by her doctors. While Cassandra and her mother initially complied with that order, with Cassandra receiving her first two chemotherapy treatments in November, Cassandra subsequently ran away from home to avoid further treatment. When Cassandra returned, she refused treatment for her disease. Following a hearing at which Cassandra’s doctors testified, the trial court ordered that she be removed from her home and that she remain in DCF’s care and custody. The court also authorized DCF to make all necessary medical decisions on Cassandra’s behalf. Cassandra and her mother appeal. They claim that, absent any finding that they are incompetent, the trial court violated their constitutional rights in allowing DCF to substitute its judgment for theirs and in permitting DCF to force Cassandra to receive medical treatment against her will. They also claim that Connecticut should recognize the “mature minor doctrine” and require that, before a court can force a seventeen year old to receive medical treatment against her will, it must first determine that the minor is not sufficiently mature to be legally allowed to make medical decisions for herself. Finally, Cassandra and her mother claim that Connecticut’s common law and public policy dictate that DCF cannot force Cassandra to receive medical treatment over her knowing and informed objection and over the knowing and informed objection of her mother.

 

[OakRiver]

So, just so I am understanding this correctly;
- the patient refused treatment
- she was a minor
- the patient's mother respected her daughter's wishes
- medical staff obtained a court order forcing treatment
- patient fled her home to escape the court order
- she was then removed from her home and treatment forced upon her

How in the world is that (a) acceptable, (b) sanctioned by a court?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Didn't this happen like six months ago? Seems it's come up before. Or is this just another instance?

forcing a woman to take drugs to kill something growing in her body. Neat concept. I wonder how else this could be applied.

 

[rambone]

Didn't this happen like six months ago? Seems it's come up before. Or is this just another instance?

No this is new. She was only diagnosed in September. She became a ward of the state in December.

This is a recurring horror story for families who don't do everything their doctors "order" them to do.

 

[One Shot One Kill]

I don't find it surprising, there have been many U.S. citizens forcibibly sterilised (over the last 100 years) to prevent the spread of their "illness".
Why wouldn't the government do something similar again today? Right? No, but it has happened nonetheless. Different kind of "treatment", but I use this as a comparison because it is similar in ways.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I think this is the one I was remembering

Baby taken from parents who sought second opinion removed from protective custody | Fox News

another

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trialan...ght-to-make-medical-decisions-for-your-child/

 

[HoughMade]

Unfortunately, we live in a world where not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. The state has a legitimate role in protecting children from death at the hands of parents. We don't seem to have a problem with this when the parent is wielding a 2X4, but in the medical context, all of a sudden we believe every parent is pure as the driven snow? What a nice world that would be.

Generally, medical decisions should be a matter between the child, the parents and their healthcare providers, but there are cases where there can be true abuse. It's the cases testing the edge of this concept that provide for the hysteria. If there is a factually, if not not legally competent 17 year old and a parent that agree, then the state should stay out of the decision. However, getting to the point where the true facts are known can take time and be intrusive.

I wish we lived in a world where parents could always be trusted and never had conflicting interests with their children, but we do not. Once the "no treat" decision is made (in many cases), there is no do-over. It's easy to call "tyranny" from the cheap seats, and in some cases there most certainly is state overreaching, but to take a position, the logical outworking of which is no state intervention in medical decisions ever, is unrealistic and dangerous. I guess it is consistent with the philosophy present in another controversial issue- that big people have more rights than little people.

 

[steveh_131]

Unfortunately, we live in a world where not all parents have the best interests of their children at heart. The state has a legitimate role in protecting children from death at the hands of parents. We don't seem to have a problem with this when the parent is wielding a 2X4, but in the medical context, all of a sudden we believe every parent is pure as the driven snow? What a nice world that would be.

Generally, medical decisions should be a matter between the child, the parents and their healthcare providers, but there are cases where there can be true abuse. It's the cases testing the edge of this concept that provide for the hysteria. If there is a factually, if not not legally competent 17 year old and a parent that agree, then the state should stay out of the decision. However, getting to the point where the true facts are known can take time and be intrusive.

I wish we lived in a world where parents could always be trusted and never had conflicting interests with their children, but we do not. Once the "no treat" decision is made (in many cases), there is no do-over. It's easy to call "tyranny" from the cheap seats, and in some cases there most certainly is state overreaching, but to take a position, the logical outworking of which is no state intervention in medical decisions ever, is unrealistic and dangerous. I guess it is consistent with the philosophy present in another controversial issue- that big people have more rights than little people.

The state has no business making medical decisions for children.

If a parent is being abusive, let the state collect evidence of abuse and intent and charge him or her with the appropriate crime.

There is no utopian world where allowing the state to control the medical care of our children does not end in tyranny,

 

[Denny347]

The state has no business making medical decisions for children.

If a parent is being abusive, let the state collect evidence of abuse and intent and charge him or her with the appropriate crime.

There is no utopian world where allowing the state to control the medical care of our children does not end in tyranny,

Then who makes the medical decisions for the child?

 

[steveh_131]

Then who makes the medical decisions for the child?

I should have been more specific. The state has no business overriding parents' medical decisions for their children.

We could debate the merits of government involvement in caring for parent-less children, but that is a different debate.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The state has no business making medical decisions for children.

If a parent is being abusive, let the state collect evidence of abuse and intent and charge him or her with the appropriate crime.

There is no utopian world where allowing the state to control the medical care of our children does not end in tyranny,

I tend to agree with this.