In the Matter of the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J
Arizona Supreme Court
650 P.2d 459 (1982)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Mrs. Drew (defendant) was the parent of eight children. One day, Mrs. Drew took Therial, her six-year-old son, to an emergency room, where he was pronounced dead. Therial had died as a result of a bowel obstruction that ruptured, leading to his death. The doctor who conducted an autopsy reported Therial’s death to the Arizona Department of Economic Security (the department). When two of the department’s caseworkers visited Mrs. Drew in her home and had a discussion with her, Mrs. Drew indicated that because she had faith that her remaining seven children would be protected by miracles, she would not provide them with medical care if the children became sick. Mrs. Drew indicated that all of the children were currently healthy. After the caseworkers’ visit, the department filed a petition seeking to adjudicate all seven children dependent. A juvenile court dismissed the petition, but an appellate court reversed, finding that there was adequate evidence to adjudicate the children dependent. The appellate court interpreted Arizona’s juvenile law as mandating that a child was entitled to live in a home in which the child’s parent was willing to provide medical care if the child became injured or sick.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gordon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
