Social services workers in Maine who had gone to court to get an order allowing them to decide to withhold medical treatment from an injured baby – a "do not resuscitate" order – say they will not use that authority, and, in fact, will let the baby's mother make such decisions.
But the legal fight that erupted for the mother over that "do not resuscitate" order will continue to the state's Supreme Court because the mother's attorney says the state did not have the right to do what its social workers did.
Officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom, who had filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of several interests, said the state simply needs to back away from the dispute.
"Everyone deserves a fighting chance to live," said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. "We are pleased the health department is affirming the mother's parental rights and the right to save her daughter's life. This decision also reaffirms Mainers' interest in life and the integrity of the medical profession. The state should dismiss its appeal with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to avoid setting a dangerous precedent which risks violating parental rights."
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
The Monterey Herald in Maine reported that the teen mother is represented by attorney Scott Hess, who said unless there's a ruling from the high court, "there will remain an open legal question" over the fight.
The no-action course on the part of state officials was confirmed by Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew.
"If the higher court upholds the previous decision that a parent's rights can be overridden by the department, this administration will not exercise that misplaced authority," she said.
WND had reported last week when the governor issued directions for that position.
"This case is disturbing and is not reflective of my administration's position that a parent who is the legal guardian of their child should have final say in medical decisions about life-sustaining treatment," Gov. Ron LePage said in a statement to WND.
"The existing law violates the sanctity of parental rights, and I cannot support it. Unless a parent is deemed unfit and parental rights are severed, the state should not override a parent's right to make medical decisions for their own child," he said.
WND had reported earlier on the case in which the mother asked the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to overturn a state-imposed "do not resuscitate" order for her injured daughter, who is temporarily in the custody of the state.
Four powerful organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the state's Department of Health and Human Services doesn't have the constitutional right to deprive the baby of her life.
A hearing is set for Sept. 23 in the case of the child known by the initials A.P.
The DHHS imposed a "do not resuscitate" order on the child, which is in the state's custody because of an alleged child abuse case. But the mother, whose parental rights have not been terminated, is contesting the state's decision.
The state argued that it has the authority to consent to a "do not resuscitate" order for any child in its custody if it is in the child's best interest.
Not so, contend Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, who filed a brief on behalf of the Christian Civic League of Maine, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Concerned Women for America and the Roman Catholic Diocese.
The mother, Virginia Trask, 18, had agreed to such an order when her daughter, then six months, was hurt in what police allege was child abuse.
Physicians say the child cannot see or hear now. She is in state custody and her mother has visitation rights. A court case against the alleged assailant remains pending.
The statement to WND from state officials said executives at the agency "did not have the opportunity to confer with the attorney general's office on the filing of the original case that sought authority to issue a 'do not resuscitate' order."
LePage called for a full review of how such decisions are made, the statement said, and the DHHS was trying to determine its legal options.
The ADF argued, "If the lower court's ruling is allowed to stand, A.P.'s institutional physicians will medicate her as desired under the DNR, and she may in fact require resuscitation – but then she will not be treated due to the DNR, and thus she will die – and her mother's parental rights would be de facto and irrevocably terminated in one of the cruelest ways imaginable."
Aden explained: "The state is effectively arguing that this mom isn't fit to make medical decisions for her child simply because she wants the child to live. No one has declared this mother an unfit parent, yet the government wants to take her place. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court should reaffirm Mainers' interest in life, parental rights, and the integrity of the medical profession by reversing the lower court and restoring this mom's full rights to make medical decisions on her daughter's behalf."
The brief argues the state doesn't have a constitutional right to interfere.
"The U.S. and Maine Constitutions and the cases interpreting them unquestionably guarantee fundamental rights to live, and to parent. Moreover, they afford the chance to make use of procedural due process – that is, the proper procedure in relation to the case at hand. And Maine itself has a rational and compelling interest in preserving the value of life, protecting the vulnerable, and upholding the integrity of the medical profession, for the good of all Mainers," it says.
"This court may prevent the tragic and unpredictable consequences to life, the vulnerable, and the medical profession that are likely to result from allowing a department to overrule a parent's reasoned, loving medical decision for her child. Wherefore, amici respectfully request that the lower court's order granting the Department of Health and Human Services' Motion for Expedited Judicial Review be reversed and remanded for further consideration in line with constitutional and case precedent. A.P.'s mother should be allowed a full and fair chance to parent, and continue to exercise her right to make medical decisions for her daughter."
The attorneys say the case "is about fundamental rights: the right to live, and the right to parent."
"The Maine Constitution places great value on human life, echoing the U.S. Declaration of Independence and providing that '[a]ll people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.'"