In the Interest of D.L.E.
Colorado Supreme Court
614 P.2d 873 (1980)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Twelve-year-old D.L.E. was experiencing periodic grand mal epileptic seizures. The seizures were not then endangering his life, nor did doctors know to a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether the seizures would become life threatening. A potential treatment to control epileptic seizures was a drug known as Dilantin. Dilantin had common side effects, including reducing a person’s ability to produce bone marrow, red blood cells, and white blood cells. Dilantin could also cause gum swelling, an unsteady gait, and headaches. The likelihood of D.L.E.’s experiencing side effects from Dilantin would increase over time because D.L.E. was likely to need progressively higher doses. D.L.E.’s adoptive mother, J.E. (defendant) was a member of a certain church, a religious tenet of which was that if a member became sick, the person should turn to church elders, who would pray, perform an oil anointment, and seek help from God. According to the church, faithful members were to refrain from seeking medical care. J.E. refused to approve medical treatment in the form of Dilantin for D.L.E. based on J.E.’s religious beliefs. The state department of social services (plaintiff) petitioned to have D.L.E. adjudicated as a juvenile dependent due to J.E.’s refusal to obtain medical treatment. The trial court found that D.L.E. was a dependent and ordered the state department to arrange for treatment. The court believed that even if D.L.E. was not a neglected child under the child-welfare law, D.L.E. could still be a dependent child. D.L.E. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Erickson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.