Once again, religious shield laws rear their head in the case of charges brought against the caregivers in a child’s death. The mother is trying to get out of her conviction of child neglect. One point glossed over in the story — the child died of painful bone cancer and the mother was charged with a misdemeanor.
Supreme Court will review case involving prayer vs. medicine in caring for sick child | Columbia Daily Herald.
The Tennessee Supreme Court may soon provide clarity to the murky issue of when parents can legally put their faith in prayer rather than medicine to heal a sick child.
The state’s high court has agreed to hear an appeal in a 12-year legal battle in Loudon County that pitted mother Jacqueline Crank’s religious freedom rights against state authorities who deemed her choice of prayer over medicine to be child abuse.
Jacqueline Crank’s daughter, Jessica Crank, died at the age of 15 in September 2002 from a rare form of bone cancer. Her mother, acting on the advice of alleged cult leader and Jessica’s “spiritual father” Ariel Sherman, spurned treatment in favor of prayer. After years of legal wrangling, both Crank and Sherman were convicted of misdemeanor child neglect.
Written by Sharon Hill. To read the full article, click here. For more information on family law and divorce matters in San Diego and/or Riverside county, please visit our website at www.jwbrookslaw.com, and follow us everywhere @jbwrookslaw.
Trying to get inside someone’s mind has never been more challenging. We lawyers have to depend upon mental health care providers to tell us what is wrong or right about their patients/our clients. While mental illness, emotional, psychiatric and psychological problems are growing social problems, getting access to the information about someone’s mental health condition has never been harder. This issue is so important that this year it even got the attention of the Tennessee
￼legislature. Interestingly, communica- tions between psychologists and patients are placed upon the same basis as those provided by law between attorney and client.1 Thus, psychologist communications are confidential and privileged, unless waived.2 Communica- tions between psychiatrists and patients are similarly privileged, with limited exceptions,3 such as:
When a patient raises the issue of the patient’s mental or emotional health;
When a psychiatrist was ordered by the court to examine the patient;
To establish that the patient poses a substantial likelihood of serious harm requiring involuntary hospital- ization; and
Patient made actual threat to phys- ically harm someone and has apparent capability to commit act in the near future.
These limited exceptions form the basis for obtaining mental health records and present a challenge in domestic cases. For example, in custody matters, a court is instructed to consider themental health” of parents and caregivers to determine what is in the child’s best interests.4 In determining a permanent parenting plan schedule, either in a divorce or subsequent modification, the court is also instructed to consider the “emotional fitness” of each parent.5 One factor resulting in restrictions to a parent’s residential time in a temporary or permanent parenting plan is “emotional impairment” that interferes with the parent’s performance of parenting responsibilities such as providing for a child’s emotional, intel- lectual, moral and spiritual develop- ment.6 How is a court able to consider the mental health of parents in custody or parenting time modification cases when parents have a statutory right to privacy over their mental health records?
Written by Siew-Ling Shea. To read the full article, click here.