In re KI
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
735 A.2d 448 (1999)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Serious, lifelong medical problems left two-year-old KI with no apparent neurological capacity except the ability to feel pain and discomfort. KI lived with her mother, BI (defendant), a frequently intoxicated drinker who failed to follow doctors’ orders for KI’s medical treatment. DM (plaintiff), KI’s putative father, initiated child-neglect proceedings against BI. While those proceedings were pending, KI fell into a coma. The trial court convened a hearing to determine the propriety of issuing a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order on KI’s behalf. BI opposed issuance. DM favored issuance, as did several medical and ethics experts who testified that any attempt to resuscitate KI would only cause her pain. The District of Columbia’s government took no position on the matter. The trial court ruled that KI was a neglected child over whom the court had jurisdiction as parens patriae. In that capacity and in light of the parents’ disagreement over the best course of action, the court decided that issuing the DNR order was in KI’s best interests. BI appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, where she argued that the DNR issue should have been determined under the substituted-judgment standard rather than the best-interests standard.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reid, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
