No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Child Welfare: Court May Determine Whether Life-Sustaining Treatment Should Be Withdrawn
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
In In re Christopher I., the California Court of Appeal upheld a juvenile court's decision to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment for a then-1-year-old dependent of the court. Christopher I. had come under juvenile court custody after his biological father, Moises I., physically abused him and rendered him comatose. Christopher's biological mother, Tamara S., was either unwilling or unable to protect him. After the disposition hearing, Tamara petitioned for a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) order for Christopher and/or removal of his life-sustaining medical treatment. Moises opposed, asserting that the juvenile court did not have authority to make medical decisions for a dependent child, for whom counsel had been assigned, without appointing a guardian. The juvenile court rejected Moises's argument and proceeded with an evidentiary hearing. All six physicians who testified supported the withdrawal of treatment or at least a DNR order.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003
References
131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 122 (2003).Google Scholar
Id. at 125.Google Scholar
Id. at 126.Google Scholar
Id. at 129.Google Scholar
Id. at 126.Google Scholar
25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) (2003).Google Scholar
131 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 146–47.Google Scholar
Id. at 148.Google Scholar
Id. at 145.Google Scholar
Id. at 133.Google Scholar