How to Get Online Free Criminal Records in Connecticut: Introduction

Are you looking for free criminal records for people in Connecticut? Are you tired of searching online for free information only to gather sites that charge a fee? Do not go to those pay sites or download any unnecessary software. There is no need to pay for this information when it is free to the public.

How to Get Online Free Criminal Records in Connecticut: The Site

The site that gives the public access to free criminal records is actually a Connecticut government website. The website is called “State of Connecticut Judicial Branch” and can be accessed by clicking here: Pending Criminal / Motor Vehicle – Search by Defendant. This site provides online users the opportunity to search for pending criminal and vehicle charges of Connecticut individuals.

How to Get Online Free Criminal Records in Connecticut: How to Utilize the Site

The site, Pending Criminal / Motor Vehicle – Search by Defendant is not complicated to navigate. Simply maintain in the last name of individual and the first name initial of the individual in the fields provided. If you do not know the exact birth year, court location, and category type then leave those fields alone. When you are finished filling out the name information click search.

Here you will find the results from the search such as the name of the individual, birth year, Court, activity of the docket, next activity date, and the docket number. To view the details of the cases click on the docket number in the row of the name that is highlighted in blue.

The pending case details will include information such as: the attorney involved in the case if any, the individual, how many times the individual appears on the docket, charges against the individual, the type of charge whether it is a felony or misdemeanor, arrest date, bond amount if any, and other useful information. Description of the charge(s) will be in detail along with the Connecticut state statute. The offense date of the charges is also listed along with the captivating agency who charged the individual.

To search on another individual click here or you can click the back arrow to navigate back to the menu to look for more criminal records on the individual.

How to Get Online Free Criminal Records in Connecticut: Conclusion

As a result, there is no need to pay for criminal records of individuals in Connecticut. Criminal record information is public and provided by the Connecticut government for free.

Twenty years from now, as Stephen Strasburg or Jason Heyward or some other grizzled veteran is about to put the finishing touches on a Hall of Fame baseball career, people will talk about the first time they saw him play. But exactly who will that person be? Will it be Strasburg? One never knows when it comes to the rookies, those guys who simply haven’t faced the challenges of a 162-game season against the sport’s top pitchers and hitters.

As the 2010 season heats up, though, almost everyone is speculating about a few guys who are the surest bets to earn the respect of teammates, opponents and fans as well as the highly coveted National league Rookie of the Year award. Ten rookies appears ready to vie for the award, which goes to the league’s top rookie. And the candidates are…

Stephen Strasburg, P, Washington: Ben Johnson. Brien Taylor. Jerome Walton. Unless you’re a true baseball nerd, you probably don’t know those names. While all three played Major League ball at some point, none of the three ever met the hype that was flying around when they showed up at spring camp as the next great one. For only that reason, one has to be a petite hesitant about predicting greatness from Strasburg. He’s already a household name in the greater D.C. site. Depending on who you ask, Strasburg can throw his fastball somewhere between 98 and 155 mph. The 2009 first-round draft pick pitched well enough this spring to garner lots of praise and some consideration to be on the team’s starting staff when it heads north next week. Strasburg, though, is like your grandmother’s dazzling china. You’ll never gather a better plate to use at dinner, but you might chip it, too. So he’ll finish in the china cabinet until it’s his time to shine. It’s tough to know when that might be. After all, he’s starting his pro career with Class AA Harrisburg. He might collect a call as early as May 1, but a lot depends on Washington’s ability to compete without him. Why throw a 20-year-old rookie into the fray if Washington is 15 games out of first place by the end of the season’s first month? The hesitancy hurts Strasburg’s chances of being the Rookie of the Year winner, and he unbiased might be the guy who wins it in 2011. Stay stuned.

Jason Heyward, OF, Atlanta: Heyward gained fame this spring when the Braves had to put up a net to keep his tape-measure batting practice smashes from slamming into cars parked beyond the fence in right field. Heyward, though, already was on many radar screens. Expected to start the season in right field for the Braves, Heyward was drafted by Atlanta in the first round of the 2007 draft and instantly produced. Still 17, he hit .302 in 12 games in Atlanta’s Class A rookie league in 2007 and batted .316 with 11 homers and 52 RBIs the next season in Class A ball. In 2009, Heyward played in 99 games and hit .323 with 17 homers and 63 RBIs. That earned him the designation of 2009 Minor League Player of the Year.

The numbers everyone is talking about this spring have nothing to do with Heyward’s batting average or slugging percentage. Instead, the scuttlebutt has been mostly about his size and age. At just 20 years of age, Heyward is 6-foot-7 and 245 pounds. Without a doubt, he’s a clubber, but there are few guarantees with a guy so young. Heyward should struggle a bit this season as he adjusts to the grueling 162-game schedule and big-league pitching. Time will tell whether he’s the next Dave Kingman or the next Albert Pujols. He’s mostly being compared to Pujols, who might be the best offensive player in the history of the game. Of course, even Pujols wasn’t thought of in Herculean terms when he first came to the bigs with the St. Louis Cardinals. The X-factor for Heyward might be the influence of some of the team’s veterans. Chipper Jones, for one, knows what it’s like to be the guy in the spotlight. If Jones can help Heyward harness his incredible potential, watch out. The two could be the best 1-2 punch in the game by mid-season.

Alcides Escobar, SS, Milwaukee: While Heyward and Strasburg are still learning how to shave with the best electric razor money can buy, Alcides is a well-developed prospect who appears ready for a breakout season. Escobar has 47 career at-bats over the past two seasons, and he made the most of his 125 at-bats last season with 38 hits in as many games. Escobar is a good five-tool talent. His defensive abilities bring raucous cheers, and he’s likely to collect a Gold Glove at shortstop sooner rather than later. The 23-year-old Escobar also has the speed to buy more than 50 bases. If he lacks anything, it’s the ability to produce lots of runs. Sure, he’ll score about 100 times in 2010, but it’s unclear whether the lead-off hitter for the Brew Crew has enough pop in his bat to swat more than 40 extra-base hits. So he’s probably a classic table-setter, and that means his entire season hinges on his ability to arrive base. In his first 16 games this spring, his on-base percentage was .385. That bodes well for a team that also features the power potential of Prince Fielder.

Chris Johnson, 3B, Houston: Call him a sleeper. Johnson played college ball at Stetson University, but his virtual anonymity didn’t keep scouts from finding this star in the making. Johnson hit .281 at Class AAA Round Rock in 2009. He belted 13 homers and knocked in 42 runs in just 384 at-bats before receiving a late-season call up to the big club. With five homers this spring, Johnson’s a guy who is going to hit. In fact, 38 of his 108 hits last summer at Round Rock went for extra bases. The inquire is whether he’ll have an opportunity. The Astros signed Pedro Feliz to play third base. That leaves Johnson, 25, as the back-up. Johnson played first base in college. Thus, he might have better luck if the team moved him across the diamond. First unsuitable, though, is inhabited by star Lance Berkman. That limits Johnson’s chances. Of course, Berkman was placed on the disabled list and will miss the season’s first four games. That allowed the Astros to retain Johnson in Houston for the start of the season.

David Freese, 3B, St. Louis: The Cardinals traded power hitter Brett Wallace to the American Legion. That tells you how much they believe in Freese, who was drafted by San Diego in the ninth round of the 2006 amateur draft. Shortly after the team made the deal, however, the problems began for Freese. He was arrested on drunken driving charges last fall, and he has endured tons of questions about his future. Freese says he’s finished drinking, and it appears he’s ready to start hitting. This spring, Freese has posted a .309 average and a .371 on-base percentage. He has shown more patience at the plate, too. That bodes well for the 26-year-old, who brings a six-game hit streak into the new season. The Cardinals, though, might want power from Freese, and it’s unclear whether he’ll produce many homers. Although he is 6-foot-2 and 220 pounds, the right-handed hitting Freese had just one dinger in 31 at-bats last season and 12 more homers in 227 minor-league at-bats in 2009. Right now, he’s more of a doubles hitter.

Buster Posey, C, San Francisco: Posey starred at Florida position before being drafted in 2008 by the Giants. He rose quickly through the minors in 2009 and earned his Major League debut on Sept. 11. Some compare Posey to Minnesota catcher Joe Mauer. Certainly, his value comes in his stick. Posey has posted a .378 batting average and a .404 on-base percentage in 45 spring at-bats. That might be slightly more than one might question from Posey, but it wouldn’t be far off. After all, he has posted a .327 batting average and a .431 on-base percentage in 459 minor-league at-bats. With his consistency, Posey makes for a good pick for the Rookie of the Year in the National League. All that stands in his way is playing time. Bengie Molina is expected to be the opening-day catcher, and it’s still unclear whether Posey will be the back-up or will start the 2010 season in the minors.

Madison Bumgarner, SP, San Francisco: The spring was tough on Bumgarner, a 20-year-old fireballer who was looking to join young gun Tim Lincecum in the rotation. Control and velocity issues forced San Francisco to send Bumgarner to the minors for additional seasoning. Certainly, the 6-foot-4, 215-pounder has the arm to be a dominant right-handed starter. After all, Bumgarner went 12-2 with a 1.85 ERA and 92 strikeouts In the minors in 2009. Most of that work, though, was in AA, where he strikeouts per nine innings trailed off considerably from his incredible 2008 numbers. In 2008, Bumgarner racked up 164 strikeouts in 141 innings at Augusta. At Class AA Connecticut, though, Bumganer had only 69 punch outs in 107 innings. If something has affected his velocity, though, it certainly isn’t giving hitters much of an advantage. Thus, he might earn a call-up early in the 2010 season, and that could pave his plan to the Rookie of the Year award.

Jason Castro, C, Houston: No. The kid with dreadlocks who starred on American Idol is not going to be catching Wandy Rodriguez’s curveball this summer. This Jason Castro, though, did assume California by storm when he starred at Stanford. That was enough to convince the Astros to take Castro in the first round of the 2009 amateur draft. This spring, the 22-year-old has shown Houston that he deserved the attention. In fact, Castro remained in competition with J.R. Towles for the starting catcher job with impartial a week to go before opening day.

Logan Morrison, 1B, Florida: In February, Marlins assistant Jack McKeon noted that Morrison would receive a shot to be the team’s opening-day first baseman. That was before Gaby Sanchez began a torrid spring that won him the job. Morrison is likely headed to the minor leagues before the regular season starts, but the 22-year-old is good enough that he’ll be back with the big club at some point in 2010. After all, the 6-foot-3, 245-pound Morrison had a .411 on-base percentage last summer in 343 trips to the plate for Class AA Jacksonville. Although he hasn’t reached his rotund potential as a power hitter, Morrison has bashed 86 doubles in four seasons since being drafted in the 22^nd round of the 2005 amateur draft. Whether Morrison has a shot at the Rookie of the Year award depends a lot on what Sanchez does once the regular season starts. Sanchez hit .410 through 13 spring games. Morrison, meanwhile, batted .200 in 40 spring at-bats. Unless Sanchez takes a dive, Morrison should have at least a few more months to manufacture his power this spring.

Ian Desmond, SS, Washington: While most of the talk in D.C. has focused on Strasburg, Desmond quietly played himself into the starting lineup this spring. ESPN.com reported on March 28 that Nationals manager Jim Riggleman opted to hand Desmond the starting job over veteran Christian Guzman. Desmond, a third-round pick in 2004, has unprejudiced 82 Major League at-bats. He hit .280 with four homers in a September call-up in 2009. This fall, Desmond, 24, has shown the ability to hit for power, a rarity even for today’s shortstops. A slump could force Riggleman to replace Desmond with Guzman. Therefore, Desmond needs to start the season strong to ensure the playing time he’ll need to compete for the Rookie of the Year brand.

Sources

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032001392.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news? slug=sh-strasburg032409
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi? id=heywar001jas
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi? id=morris001log
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2010/news/story? id=5035263
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/6918244.html
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi? id=bumgar001mad
http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp? player_id=457763
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/prospects/y2009/profile.jsp? t=p_top&pid=457763
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi? id=freese001dav
http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp? player_id=501896
http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp? player_id=444876
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/prospects/y2009/profile.jsp? t=p_top&pid=444876

All states must test a commercial driver’s ability to operate commercial vehicles like big rigs and passenger buses. The Connecticut DMV performs this testing task for commercial drivers in the plot. Applicants must first sight for and pass a CDL written test to get a commercial driver’s license (CDL license). After passing the written test, they can then yell on actual vehicles. To receive an genuine Connecticut CDL license, an applicant must then take and pass a hands-on CDL skills exam. The local DMV then issues a license provided that the applicant has passed on medical exams and other background checks.

Step 1:

Obtain a copy of the Connecticut CDL manual. You may access this “Connecticut Commercial Driver’s Manual” spy guide online at Ct.gov/dmv/lib/dmv/20/29/comdr.pdf. Of course, you can also pick up a copy at the local Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV is the office in your area that issues driver’s licenses for the state.

Step 2:

Study the CDL manual for the portions of the test that you will be taking. The portions that you must take and pass depend on the type of commercial vehicle that you will be driving. If you want to expand your career opportunities, then you can take all portions of the exam. A Connecticut CDL license will then include “endorsements” like HAZMAT or school buses if you pass all portions of the exam. Study each fraction thoroughly because you must pass any endorsement tests irrespective of your overall earn on the Connecticut CDL exam.

Step 3:

Take the CDL written test at your local Connecticut DMV office. Upon passing the test, you can then receive a CDL permit. This permit allows you to do hands-on CDL training on the roads of Connecticut with actual commercial vehicles. You fair need to be supervised by a fully licensed commercial driver when doing your training.

Step 4:

Gawk for a suitable CDL training program near you. The type of training you receive will depend on the type of job or vehicle you intend to collect or drive. For example, if you are going to drive a big rig, you can attend a truck driving school. The Professional Truck Driver Institute has not certified any CDL program in Connecticut, as of October 2010. However, there are several schools in New York and other states come Connecticut. Refer to the map and PTDI school directory at Ptdi.org/schools/schools.aspx to find a school for your Connecticut CDL training.

In the case of other types of commercial driving jobs, you generally should sight to the local Connecticut school system for job opportunities or private employers in the transporation industry. For example, Greyhound has a bus driver training program in many parts of the country. Visit their main website for more information.

Step 5:

Schedule a skills/driving exam to get your Connecticut CDL license. You must provide your own vehicle for this purpose. Therefore, check with your training provider before arranging a CDL skills test with your Connecticut DMV. For example, truck driving schools typically allow you to use one of their trucks to lift the exam. In other cases, your local school district or transportation company will help you arrange a test.

Step 6:

Hold the CDL skills test. After you pass this last exam, you can then receive a full Connecticut CDL license from the local Connecticut DMV office. However, you need to pass a medical exam and a background check in some cases. Ask the local DMV about these requirements.

Sources:

Connecticut CDL Manual

PTDI Certified Truck Driving Schools Near Connecticut

Eating disorders are usually associated with teenage girls, however, there is a new generation that is beginning to suffer with this disease. And it is not the twenty-something’s – it’s women that are in their thirties, forties or fifties. There is a new epidemic, in a completely current age range, that is affecting millions of middle-aged women. Doctors are finding themselves diagnosing more and more older women with various eating disorders. This makes one begin to judge, “Could this be a horrible outbreak of a mass midlife crisis.” However, it makes since. In the media, we are bombarded with pictures and videos of rail-thin women, who are in their thirties and forties, walking around and “living” a grand life. As we have noticed, the presence of pop-culture has deeply affected the youth of America, however, we are now seeing that the constant pressure to stay thin is beginning to effect an older generation.

But why are so many “educated” women beginning to delve into the dark world of eating disorders? As a society, many people do no view an eating disorder as a disease. They tend to think that by practicing anorexia or bulimia does not lead to a psychological problem, and if they need help than it is easily treatable. However, there are many different form of eating disorders that have made them seem, “safe.” We no longer are seeing women, or men, simply stop eating, it is very common to find many people over-exercising or using laxatives.

However, women who are in their thirties or forties, usually aren’t fighting this symptom for the first time. Nearly all of the women that are going in for eating disorder treatments have suffered with the disease at least once prior. However, most of the time it wasn’t diagnosed or treated, and this lack of treatment when these women were younger have kept the mental thoughts and possibilities of using an eating disorder to loose weight alive.

Although the above may be the case, there are other doctors that believe the cause of this epidemic is due to hormonal fluctuations that occur near menopause. However, this isn’t the only reason. An eating disorder could be triggered by mid-life changes, such as divorce or the sending off of grown children. It is very common that as family changes, usually at a very rapid amble, many women acquire themselves longing for some type of control or stability — and it so happens that eating disorders give the person a vast amount of control and “stability.” Because if you can’t control what is going on outside of your body, you can at least control what is going in.

But there is a serious quandary occurring. There is literally no focus on older women and eating disorders. All of the energy within this field is going towards younger women, and there are very few treatments of older women. They are literally being ignored. This was the same problem that men found several years ago — because this notion of mid-life crisis eating disorders has not surfaced to the “mainstream”, thus there aren’t very many treatments that cater to the older female.

If you have found yourself in this place within your own life, I have listed several treatment facilities that can help you. They are listed by state:

ARIZONA:

The Mandel Center
11811 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste 3031
Phoenix, AZ
480-734-1199

Mirasol
The Arizona Center for Eating Disorders Recovery
5366 N. Camino de la Culebra
Tucson, AZ 85750
1-888-520-1700

Remuda Ranch
Center for Anorexia and Bulimia
One E. Apache
Wickenburg, AZ 85358
1-800-445-1900

Rosewood
36075 South Rincon Road
Wickenburg, AZ 85390
1-800-845-2211

Sierra Tucson
39580 S. Lago del Oro Parkway
Tucson, AZ 85739
1-800-842-4487

CALIFORNIA:

Balanza
1761 Hotel Circle South
San Diego, CA 92108
619-297-4499

The Bella Vita
BHC Alhambra Hospital
Pasadena, CA
800-235-5570

Casa de Lago
22590 Canyon Lake Drive South
Canyon Lake, CA 92587
1-800-824-4936

Casa Palmera
14750 El Camino Real
Del Mar, CA 92014
1-888-481-4481
info@casapalmera.com


Center for Discovery and Adolescent Change
Downey Facility
9844 Pangborn Avenue
Downey, California USA 90240
800-760-3934

Center for Discovery and Adolescent Change
Lakewood Facility
4136 Ann Arbor Road
Lakewood, CA 90712
800-760-3934

Center for Discovery and Adolescent Change
Menlo Park Facility
1895 Altschul Avenue
Menlo Park, California USA 94025
800-760-3934

Center for Discovery and Adolescent Change
Whittier Facility
11911 Washington Boulevard
Whittier, California USA 90606
800-760-3934

CRC Health Group
20400 Stevens Creek Blvd.
6th Floor
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
(866)549-5034

Del Amo Hospital Eating Disorders Program
23700 Camino Del Sol
Torrance, CA 90505
800-533-5266

Harmony Grove:
Supportive Living for Eating Wellness
San Diego, CA 92130
(858)342-1514


Healthy Within
4510 Executive Dr. 103
San Diego, CA 92121
(858)622-0221

Loma Linda University Behavioral Med. Center
Redlands, CA
1-800-752-5999

Mandometer Treatment for Eating Disorders
11777 Bernardo Plaza Court, Suite 208
San Diego, CA 92128
858-451-1008

Montecatini
2524 La Costa Ave.
Rancho La Costa, CA 92009
760-436-8930

Monte Nido
27162 Sea Vista Dr.
Malibu, CA 90265
(310) 457-9958

New Directions Eating Disorders Center
14542 Ventura Blvd. Suite 211
Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403
818-377-4442

Oak Knoll Family Therapy Center
12307 Oak Knoll Road Suite O
Poway, CA 92064
(858) 748-4323

Oceanaire
30175 Avenida Tranquila
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-377-3200

Ohlhoff Eating Disorders Outpatient Program
2418 Clement St.
San Francisco, CA 94121
415-221.3354

Puente de Vida
La Jolla, CA
1-877-995-4337

Rader Programs
Nationwide Locations Including CA
1-800-841-1515

Rebecca’s House
23861 El Toro Road, Suite 700
Lake Forest, CA 92630
800-711-2062
info@rebeccashouse.org

Satori House
Shoreline Center for Eating Disorder Treatment
Long Beach, CA
(562) 434-6007

Sharp Mesa Vista Hospital
7850 Vista Hill Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 694-8434

South Soar Medical Center
Eating Disorders Treatment
31872 Coast Highway
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
(949) 499-7504

Summit Eating Disorders and Outreach Program
601 University Ave, Ste. 225
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-920-5276

The Victorian of Newport Beach
505 29th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
800-647-0042

COLORADO:

Children’s Hospital of Denver, CO
1056 E. 19th Av.
Denver, CO 80218
1-800-458-6500

Denver Health A.C.U.T.E Medical Center
777 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80204-4507
877-228-8348

Eating Disorder Center of Denver
950 South Cherry St., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80246
1-303-771-0861

New Directions Eating Disorders Center
2121 S. Oneida #412
Denver, Co 80224
303-694-7484

CONNECTICUT:

The Institute of Living
400 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
1-800-673-2411

The Renfrew Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; Coconut Creek, Florida; New York City; Northern New Jersey; Southern Connecticut
1-800-RENFREW

Wellspring
21 Arch Bridge Rd.
Bethlehem, CT 06751
203-266-8000

FLORIDA:

The Boswell Center
6817 Southpoint Parkway, Suite 904
Jacksonville, FL 32216
904-332-9100

Canopy Cove
2300 Killearn Center Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32308
1-800-236-7524

Center for Eating and Weight Disorders
Assessment and Psychotherapy Services, Inc.
2155 Main Street
Sarasota, Florida 34237
(941) 365-2962

Fairwinds Treatment Center
1569 South Fort Harrison
Clearwater, Florida 33756
1-800-226-0301

Milestones at High Point
5960 Southwest 106th Ave
Cooper City, FL 33328
800-347-2364

Rader Programs
Los Angeles, CA
Tulsa, OK
1-800-841-1515

The Renfrew Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; Coconut Creek, Florida; New York City; Northern New Jersey; Southern Connecticut
1-800-RENFREW

Turning Point of Tampa, Inc.
6227 Sheldon Rd.
Tampa, FL 33615
800-397-3006

The Willough at Naples
9001 Tamianm Trail East
Naples, FL 34113
1-800-722-0100

GEORGIA:

Ridgeview Institute
3995 South Cobb Dr.
Smyrna, GA
1-800-329-9775

Peachford Hospital
2151 Peachford Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30338
770-455-3200

HAWAII:

Aloha Healing Retreats
P.O. 1850
Pahoa, Hawaii 96778
1-888-967-8622

Anorexia and Bulimia Center of Hawaii
Kailua, Oahu, Maui, HI
1-808-262-0398

ILLINOIS:

Alexian Brothers Medical Center, IL
1650 Moon Lake Boulevard
Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60194
1-800-432-5005

Timberline Knolls
40 Timberline Dr.
Lemont, IL 60439
630-343-2346

INDIANA:

Eating Disorders Center of Indiana
3945 Eagle Creek Parkway
Suite C
Indianapolis IN 46254
317-329-7071

KANSAS:

Menninger Clinic
Topeka, KS
1-800-351-9058

Kentucky:

Adventurehaven Center for Eating Disorders Education and Recovery
3031 Dixie Hwy. Suite 100A
Edgewood, KY 41017
1-859-578-9899

Louisiana:

Depaul Tulane Behavioral Health Center’s Eating Disorders Program
1040 Calhoun Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
1-800-548-4183

River Oaks Hospital
Eating Disorder Treatment Center
1525 River Oaks Road West
New Orleans, LA 70123
1-800-366-1740

Maine:

Arbour Hospital
49 Robinwood Ave
Boston, MA 02130-2156
(617)522-4400

Westwood Pembroke Health System:
The Eating Disorders Program
New England
1-617-762-7764 x488
1-800-22-ACCES

Maryland:
Center for Eating Disorders at Sheppard Pratt
Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital
6501 N. Charles Street Unit B-5
Baltimore, MD 21204
Phone: 410-938-5252

Massachusetts:

Cambridge Eating Disorder Center
3 Bow Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
main: 617-547-2255
residential program: 617-661-0841

Laurel Hill Inn
P. O. Box 368
Medford MA 02155-0004
781-391-1116

The Klarman Eating Disorders Center
at McLean Hospital
115 Mill St.
Belmont, MA 02478
email: klarmancenter@mclean.org
(617)855-3410

Michigan:

Forest View Psychiatric Hospital
1055 Medical Park Drive S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
1-800-949-8439
Four Seasons Treatment Center
1176 S. Main St.
Plymouth, MI 48170
(734) 416-3341

Minnesota:

The Emily Program
2550 University Avenue West, Suite 314N
St. Paul, MN 55114
(651) 645-5323

Methodist Hospital
Eating Disorders Institute
6490 Excelsior Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
(952) 993-6200

Mississippi:

Pine Grove Women’s Center
3875 Veteran’s Memorial Drive
Hattiesburg, MS 39403
1-888-574-HOPE
info@pinegrove-treatment.com


Missouri:

Castlewood Treatment Center for Eating Disorders
800 Holland Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63021
636-386-6611

Eating Disorder Recovery Center
1034 S. Brentwood Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63117
(314)721-5514
McCallum Place on the Park
100 S. Brentwood #350
Clayton, MO 63105
1-800-828-8158

Montana:

Rimrock Foundation
1231 N. 29th St.
PO Box 30374
Billings, MT 59107
1-406-248-3175
1- 800-227-3953

Nebraska:

Children’s Hospital of Omaha, NE
8200 Dodge Street
Omaha, NE 68114
402-955-6190

Nevada:

Center for Hope of the Sierras
1453 Pass Drive
Reno, Nevada 89511
1-775-828-4949

New Hampshire:

Hampstead Hospital
218 East Rd
Hampstead, NH 03841
1-800-600-5311

Westwood Pembroke Health System:
The Eating Disorders Program
New England
Information: (617) 762-7764 x488
Admissions: 1-800-22-ACCES

New Jersey:

Medical Center at Princeton
253 Witherspoon Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
1-877-932-8935

The Renfrew Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; Coconut Creek, Florida; New York City; Northern New Jersey; Southern Connecticut
1-800-RENFREW

New Mexico:
The Life Healing Center of Santa Fe
25 Vista Point Rd.
Santa Fe, NM 87508
(877)907-6237

Original York:

Avalon Eating Disorder Center
346 Harris Hill Road
Williamsville, NY 14221
(716) 839-0999

The Eating Disorder Resource Center
24 East 12th St. Suite 505
New York, NY 10003
(212) 989-3987

The Renfrew Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Buck’s County, Pennsylvania; Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; Coconut Creek, Florida; Miami, Florida: New York City; Northern Novel Jersey; Southern Connecticut
1-800-RENFREW

North Carolina:

Carolina House
176 Lassiter Homestead Road
Durham, North Carolina 27713
866-540-5240

Structure House
Durham, NC
1-800-553-0052

North Dakota:

Eating Disorder Institute
Meritcare South University
1720 S. University Dr.
Fargo, ND 58122
800-437-4010 x 4111
701-234-4111


Ohio:

Laurelwood Eating Disorders Program
35900 Euclid Ave.
Willoughby, OH 44094
1-800-438-4673

River Centre Clinic
5465 Main St.
Sylvania, OH 43560
1-419-885-8800

Oklahoma:
Laureate
A division of Saint Francis Health System
Tulsa, OK
1-800-322-5173

Rader Programs
Nationwide Locations Including CA
1-800-841-1515


Oregon:

A Better Procedure Counseling Center
818 NW 17th Av.
Portland, OR 97209
(503) 226-9061

Kartini Clinic
2800 N. Vancouver, Suite 118
Portland, OR 97227
(503) 249 8851

Pennsylvania:

Belmont Center for Comprehensive Treatment
4200 Monument Road
Philadelphia, PA 19131
(215) 456-8000

Penn Plot Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
Eating Disorders Program
905 W. Governor Road Suite 250
Hershey, PA 17033
717-531-2099

UPMC
Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic (WPIC)
3811 O’Hara Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2593
877-624-4100

The Renfrew Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; Coconut Creek, Florida; Modern York City; Northern New Jersey; Southern Connecticut
1-800-RENFREW

Rhode Island:

South Carolina:

Hilton Head Health Institute
14 Valencia Road
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
1-800-292-2440

South Dakota:

Tennessee:

The Ranch
P.O. Box 38
Nunnelly, TN 37137
1-800-849-5969


Texas:

La Que Sabe ED Clinic
4103 Marathon Blvd.
Austin, TX 78756
512-478-9240

Menninger Clinic
Houston, TX
1-800-351-9058

Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas
8200 Walnut Hill Lane
Dallas, TX 75231
1-800-411-7081

Sante Center For Healing
914 Country Club Rd.
Argyle, TX 76226
1-800-258-4250

Shades of Hope Treatment Center
P.O. Box 639
Buffalo Gap, TX 75908
1-800-588-HOPE

Cadwalder Behavioral Clinics
30903 Quinn Road
Tomball, TX 77375
281-351-6644
866-351-6644 (toll free)

Utah:
Avalon Hills
7852 West 600 North
Petersboro, UT 84325
(800) 330-0490
info@avalonhills.org

Center for Change
1790 North State Street
Orem, UT 84057
1-801-224-8255

New Life Center
1255 E. 3900 S
Salt Lake City, UT 84124
(888) 281-3353

Vermont:

Brattleboro Retreat
75 Linden Street
P.O. Box 803
Brattleboro, VT 05302
1-800-738-7328

Green Mountain at Fox Run
Fox Lane, Box 164
Ludlow, VT 05149
(802) 228-8885

Virginia:

Washington:

A Place of Hope
The Center for Counseling & Health Resources, Inc.
547 Dayton
Edmonds, WA 98020
1-888-771-5166

Moore Center, The
1601 114th Av. SE, #180
Bellevue, WA 98004
(425) 451-1134

Washington, DC:

West Virginia:

Wisconsin:

Rogers Memorial Hospital ED Center
34700 Valley Road
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
1-800-767-4411

Wyoming:

CANADA:

The Last Resort
c/o McCarroll & Associates Inc.
Seefried Plaza, Suite 208
6036 – 3 St. SW
Calgary, Alberta Canada T2H 0H9
1-403-209-0224

Marnies Place
Brantford, Ontario
CANADA
519-752-5468

New Realities Eating Disorders Recovery Centre
62 Charles Street East, Suite 103
Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1T1
Toronto: 416 921-9670
Thornhill: 905 763-0660

Sacred Eating Disorders
P.O. Box 82067
Yellowbird RPO
Edmonton, AB Canada, T6J 7E6
(780) 423-5508

Westwind Eating Disorder Recovery Centre
458 14th St. Brandon
Manitoba, CANADA R7A 4T3
1-888-353-3372

MEXICO:

Comenzar de Nuevo, AC
Association for the Prevention, Detection and Treatment of ED
Avenida Humberto Lobo No. 240 Local 8
Colonia Del Valle
San Pedro Garza Garcia, NL 66252 Mexico
Phone: (52) (81) 81 29 46 83
(52) (81) 81 29 46 84

ECUADOR:

The Center, A Place of Hope, Ecuador S.A.
La Cumbre N34-110 entre Carlos Montúfar y Quiteño Libre
Quito, Ecuador.
Phones: (593 2) 224 8442 and (593 2) 227 5575

Parents have many responsibilities when it comes for caring for their children. Children, especially at a young age, need constant attention, guidance, and supervision. One of a parent’s most challenging and complicated tasks can be to make medical decisions for their child. Most parents will be faced with countless medical decisions throughout the life of their child – from circumcision at birth, immunizations before elementary school, and other routine healthcare issues. Other parents must make frequent medical decisions for their critically ill children. As innovations in medicine have given us more options in healthcare, we have seen more and more cases before the courts pitting parents’ religious beliefs against the plot intervening to support the medical interests of the child. Just as healthcare is evolving, so are our nation’s young people. Minors are maturing more quickly now than ever before and with that maturity should come the ability to take a larger role in making the decisions that shape their lives.

Greater statutory protections should be afforded to a mature minor’s religious practices when a court is determining whether to allow a medical design over the religious objections of a minor’s parents. The U.S. Constitution gives all Americans the right to freely spend the religion of their choice, but often, parents’ religious views oppose what may be in the best interest of their child’s medical care. Parents’ religious practices usually are protected, unless the state can indicate a compelling interest as to why intervention is profitable and intervention is done through least restrictive means. It is relatively well settled that if a parent refuses to consent to life-saving treatment for their child, the state will intervene to ensure the child receives the medical care.[1] A less explored area of the law exists in the realm of non-emergency, elective and cosmetic medical treatments of minors. In these situations, a mature minor’s religious preferences should be protected unless the state can reveal a rational basis for their intervention. Smaller children’s religious preferences are not and should not be afforded distinguished protection; this is rational considering young children’s general inability to understand the consequences of medical treatment and its possible relation to complicated religious doctrine. Before I explore why greater statutory protections should be allowed for mature minors, we must first explore the unique state of the law and how it came to be.

I. Fundamental Right of Parents to form Medical Decisions

Parents have the right to make decisions regarding their children; this statement is both logical to non-legal scholars and legally true. The first of three benchmark cases in this area alive to a nine-year-old selling religious pamphlets on street corners with her aunt, who was also her guardian. Prince v. Massachusetts[2] recognized that adults have the fair to practice their religion freely, but that factual does not include the ability to expose their child to illness or possible death. As early as the mid-1940’s, the case made it clear that a parent’s right to control his child is not without limits, even when a free expend claim is involved.[3] The now famous language of the Court declares that “parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of paunchy and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.” [4]

Almost thirty years later, the Supreme Court issued another primary opinion dealing with parents’ religious beliefs and decisions affecting their child. The holding in Wisconsin v. Yoder was that the state’s compulsory school attendance requirement for children under the age of 16 infringed upon the Amish parents’ right to indoctrinate their children in accordance with their religious beliefs.[5] However, the Court stated the decision was made in part because the school attendance was more than just a matter of religion, it would affect the Amish family’s entire plan of life.[6]

Yoder is an example of the Court performing a hybrid analysis, which takes station when two fundamental rights are at issue.[7] A hybrid analysis requires the place to pass the highest level of scrutiny. In fact, the Supreme Court stated “the only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections.”[8] Specifically, Yoder held “when the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, more than merely a ‘reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State’ is required to support the validity of the State’s requirement under the First Amendment.”[9] Therefore, throughout the medical neglect case law we will see the court applying strict scrutiny when hybrid claims are brought by parents wishing to have their true to parenthood as well as their right to religious freedom protected. As will be discussed in more detail, if a mature minor were to claim a right to produce his contain medical decisions based on his apt to free exercise, the court would afford him less than strict scrutiny (probably rational basis review) because the claim is for protection of just one fundamental upright, not a hybrid of two.

As in Prince, the Yoder Court recognized that the state’s inherent power to control the activities and care of a child takes precedence over the parental right to religious free exercise which could be harmful to the health or welfare of the child. The third benchmark case is not factually on point, but reaches the same conclusion as the two cases discussed above. Recent medical neglect cases have relied on Reynolds v. United States,[10] which upheld a criminal conviction for a man who asserted his bigamy furthered his religious beliefs. The Court again drew a line between an adult’s right to free exercise and practice that is detrimental to public health or welfare stating “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practice”.[11] This case, like Prince and Yoder, stands for the principle that parents’ First Amendment rights are not always violated when the location makes decisions.

Of these three cases, perhaps the most necessary of all is Justice Douglas’s dissent in Yoder,[12] which suggested that a child’s opinion ought to be considered to choose whether his religious beliefs and ideals were aligned with those of his parents. Because it is the child’s life most directly affected by the decision, such an approach would be preferable, especially considering the trend of the law to recognize children as persons who, like adults, are protected by our federal Constitution.[13] If the child is someone the court may consider a “mature minor” or close to the age of majority, his own religious beliefs and opinions should be considered when the court is facing a case that will ultimately decide whether a medical procedure will or will not be performed on the child. This should be true regardless of the nature of the procedure, whether it is life-saving or cosmetic. As will be explained later in more detail, the “mature minor doctrine” states that some minors are capable of making their fill medical decisions because, like adults, they understand the risks, possible complications, and prognosis of the treatment they are choosing to undergo or refuse.

The majority idea in Yoder, addressing Douglas’s statements in the dissent, states that their holding does not depend on the child’s religious idea because the parents are the ones being prosecuted, not the children.[14] While that is true, it is absurd to think that the court’s decision does not directly shape and affect the life of that child. The court argues that the religious beliefs of the children should not be contrasted with those of their parents because the children are not parties to the litigation, but it is the children whose lives the lawsuit discusses and to ignore their opinions is to ignore their fair rights.

This area of the law deals with the parents’ rights to religious freedom and their proper to make medical decisions for their children. In order to fully understand why the standards should be changed to include a closer notice at the juvenile’s rights, we must first examine what the parents’ rights are and from where they stem.

II. Parents’ Right to Religious Freedom

All Americans have the correct to religious freedom under our Constitution by virtue of the 1^st Amendment.[15] Made applicable to the states by the 14^th Amendment,[16] the Free Exercise Clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Very briefly stated, the United States citizens have two basic freedoms – the freedom to enjoy, which is absolute, and the freedom to act, which is respectable to protect society as a whole.[17] It rightfully follows then that parents have the right to hold whatever they want regarding the healthcare of their children, but their conduct and decisions can be subject to restrictions.

Most cases in this area of the law involve parents of either the Jehovah’s Witness or Christian Science faiths. The Biblical basis for parents’ not agreeing to some medical treatments is quite interesting. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses often call on various passages which location that ingesting blood is wrong, you must abstain from it and if you do not you will be outlawed from God’s people.[18] Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Scientists, professed that illness is a manifestation of a diseased mind, so the moral sickness must be cured before the physical can be.[19] She also taught that children’s illnesses were due to the diseased minds of the parents.[20] Christian Scientists believe that practitioners of their religion should administer spiritual aid to heal a person’s physical problems.[21] The Free Exercise Clause protects these beliefs, but it does not allow for their unqualified practice. As was stated in Prince, parents can martyr themselves, but as we will now see, they cannot make martyrs of their children.

III. Ability of Area to Intervene

Perhaps the first case involving the state attempting to take custody of a child to administer medical treatment was In re Tuttendario, [22] in which a seven-year-old boy with rickets needed to have an operation to make his legs look and function more normally. Without the procedure there was a risk he would become crippled for life, but the court refused to catch custody away from the parents ruling that it was against public policy.[23] The judge also noted that his condition did not endanger his life,[24] which is still often seen as the standard today.

The doctrine of parens patriae (Latin for “parent of his or her country”)[25] gives courts the jurisdiction to care for children, protect them from abuse and neglect, and remove them from the custody of their parents when the state so warrants.[26] Every state has definitions in their abuse/neglect/dependency statutes to settle what standards parents must follow; it is also through these statutes that courts have the power to remove children if necessary. Medical neglect is also statutorily defined in each region. In Matter of Hofbauer,[27] the court held that the facts of each case must be looked at to determine whether a child is being deprived of adequate medical care and is therefore a neglected child. Among other factors to be looked at are whether the parents followed a treatment prescribed by their doctor or another course of action that is acceptable under some medical authority, and whether the course of action the parents chose was top-notch given all the circumstances.[28] When the parents’ religious beliefs affect their decision making about the type of treatment or lack there of to pursue for their child, they must be considered. As discussed above, the court will analyze the parents’ right to make medical decisions for their child and their right to religious freedom as a hybrid claim, thus requiring a showing of strict scrutiny.

On rare occasions courts mention the importance of the expressed preference of the child;[29] however, even when children are at an age where they are able to produce their beget religious convictions (adolescence for most) the child’s religious preference is rarely discussed. This is reasonable, as a small child likely does not fully understand the consequences of undergoing or refusing a specific type of medical treatment or beget his own religious beliefs. In medical neglect cases the parents’ interests are weighed against those of the state, and while in the vast majority of instances a guardian ad litem has been appointed to advocate for the best interest of the child, there smooth seems to only be two major players – the parents and the state. If a mature minor is involved, the court will not require the same heightened scrutiny as is required to overcome a parent’s medical objection, but would likely perform a rational basis review of the state’s interest in requiring treatment over the religious objection.

IV. Statutory Exemptions for Religious Adherents

By 2003 thirty-nine states and the District of Columbus had enacted laws permitting parents to reject medical treatment for their children in favor of faith healing.[30] However, most of those state laws specifically require if a child has a life-threatening condition, a doctor must be consulted. An example of this statutory exemption is in Connecticut, where the statute speaks specifically about Christian Scientists and states “the treatment of any child by a Christian Science practitioner in lieu of treatment by a licensed practitioner of the healing arts shall not of itself constitute maltreatment.” [31]

Some states have found these laws to be unconstitutional. A common argument against them is that children whose parents belong to a religion that practices faith healing are not exposed to traditional medical settings where a professional could encounter the child and decide to peruse a judicial intervention.[32] This fact makes the law almost useless because the courts do not know about the child’s status and cannot be of assistance, thus making the laws a threat to the health and welfare of children in that jurisdiction.

These laws are in place largely because of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974,[33] which established federal standards for implementing various child abuse programs and support by federal money if the state met the standards.[34] Thanks to Christian Science lobbyists, one of the regulations included a requirement that parents who do not provide medical treatment to their child because of their religious beliefs are not negligent parents.[35] Before the Act, only 11 states had religious exemptions, but in order to comply and receive the federal money 33 more states passed exemption laws.[36] A 1983 amendment to the Act allowed for states to choose whether to occupy or repeal the religious exemptions when determining if parents have been neglectful without affecting their financial support.[37]

Ohio had an exemption for religious adherents until it was found to be a violation of the First Amendment in the 1984 caseState v. Miskimens.[38] The old law recognized that no one could create a substantial risk to the health of a child by violating their duty of care, but also stated:

It is not a violation of a duty of care, protection, or support under this division when the parent, guardian, custodian, or person having custody or control of a child treats the physical or mental illness or defect of the child by spiritual means through prayer alone, in accordance with the tenets of a recognized religious body.[39]

Miskimens held the exemption was based solely on religious preference of the accused, and it was a violation of the entanglement prong[40] to determine whether the claimed religious apt blissful the statutory requirements.[41] Also celebrated in the case was an equal protection argument that religious adherent parents were treated differently than other parents in violation of the 14^th Amendment.[42] The court held a third reason for the unconstitutionality of the law was the vagueness as to what constituted a recognized religious body, and what is meant by ’spiritual means’.[43]

In Cantwell v. Connecticut,[44] the Supreme Court noted that a statutory exemption violates the Establishment Clause if it requires the area to act or refrain from acting on the basis of whether it recognizes a particular religious belief. Certainly, having to determine the worthiness of a certain religion would violate the Lemon test[45] for excessive entanglement.

The government cannot statutorily advance a religion or a acquire a burden from persons practicing a certain religion, thus creating an incentive for others to join their religious sect; however, the government may make some permissible religious accommodations.[46] In Cutter, a group of current and prior inmates at various Ohio Correctional Facilities brought a claim that the prison officials were not allowing them to practice their ‘non-mainstream’ religions in violation of their 1^st Amendment rights.[47] The Court held that the statutory restriction was not meant to “elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to absorb order and safety.”[48]

Government accommodations may not supersede other important interests; in Cutter that interest was the safety and welfare of the petitioners as well as other prisoners. In medical neglect cases, the government’s interest is in protecting children from harm.

V. Constitutional Rights of Minors

Although their rights are not the same as those of adults,[49] children are not without constitutional rights. Minors have constitutional rights under the First Amendment which consequently, are subject to the same restrictions.[50] Just as a minor is free to have his own religious beliefs without qualification, he is also entitled to practice his religion subject to limitations for societal well being. When a child is of an age that he is mature enough to weigh what he has been taught by his parents and what he has learned through personal experience, he should be given a voice in the outcome of a case to settle his medical treatment. Children, like adults, have a liberty interest in not being confined for unnecessary medical treatment.[51] However, only minors who have demonstrated a sincere, informed, and committed choice to follow their religious beliefs should be allowed to refuse life-saving medical treatments.

For elective or cosmetic procedures the bar can be set lower, but the minor should still be required to show an honest view in his religion to use it as an argument for or against the sought after medical care. An example of this would be where a parent does not want the teen to have a cosmetic device for religious reasons, but the teen does not fragment in his parent’s beliefs. If he has his own strongly held religious beliefs, the mature minor’s religious convictions should be considered.

VI. Nature of the Medical Treatment

When charged with the task of determining whether to allow medical treatment over the religious objection of the parents and what part the child should have in that decision, the courts took at two basic factors – the nature of the treatment and the age of the child. First, we will request the nature of the treatments.

It is a well settled principle that parents cannot deny life saving treatment to their children[52] and the state has a compelling interest in ensuring the safety of its minor residents. It is not as clear when the medical treatment in inquire of is not an emergency or life threatening situation; in these cases of cosmetic or elective procedures the court is likely to use a lower level of scrutiny. When the child’s life is not in immediate danger, the court’s focus shifts to the nature of the treatment and the prognosis given by medical professionals. There are countless cases in the area of medical neglect, for purposes of this paper they will be considered from the direst types of illnesses to less serious.

a. Cancer

The category of cancer includes many different types of illnesses and many types of treatments. When dealing with children who have cancer and parents who oppose treatment for religious reasons, courts traditionally look at the possibility of a better quality of life, a possible cure, surgery, administration of painkillers, chemotherapy, radiation treatments, and other possible avenues. For example, the court in In re Willmann[53] affirmed the trial court’s decision to adjudicate a child to be dependent when he required chemotherapy and possibly surgery to fight a malignant cancer that without action would buy his life. Also an important factor in the case was that every physician consulted on agreed with the proposed course of treatment.[54] In another case enthralling a child with cancer, the court again ruled that her father’s religious beliefs in refusing her medical care was outweighed by her need to have treatment to deal with her sarcoma.[55] The doctors hypothesized a 25-50% chance of long-term success with treatment, but without treatment she would likely live only six to nine more months.[56]

Not all cases titillating childhood cancer reach the same conclusion. A three-year-old child whose parents practiced Christian Science was not found to be a dependent child when his doctors said without chemotherapy he would die in six to eight months.[57] In this case, the treatment was extremely invasive, risky, toxic and life threatening in itself and had only a 40% chance of success.[58] The court looked at the fact that the parents’ decision to not seek treatment was a reasonable one considering the nature of the treatment and risk of failure.[59] The state fell short of their burden of proving (by clear and convincing evidence) that interference with the parent-child relationship was important to ensure the health and safety of the child.[60]

b. Blood Transfusions/Surgeries

Another major category of medical neglect cases involve children who need blood transfusions, surgery, or a combination of the two. Without a showing of parental unfitness, the plot may not force surgery for a child.[61] As with the cancer cases, when dealing with blood transfusions the court studies the nature of the treatment and the risk to the child if the parents’ religious beliefs are followed to determine whether to require a draw. The cases in this area span several decades, but the overriding standard is generally the same. For example, in 1952 the court held that it was proper to order a blood transfusion against the religious objections of both parents when if left untreated the condition would result either in death or severe, permanent mental impairment.[62] More than twenty years later came a similar case and a similar outcome. In Muhlenberg Hospital v. Patterson,[63] the court held it was in the best interest of the child and society as a whole to protect infants when there is imminent pains of irreparable and severe brain distress, just as where the child is facing the possibility of death. In that case, the court ordered a blood transfusion over the mother’s religious objection for an infant suffering from jaundice.[64]

In 1991, Matter of McCauley[65] allowed a blood transfusion for an 8-year-old child and also set out several factors to consider regarding of the administration of blood and blood products: the age of the child, the risk to the child’s health if treatment is withheld, the probability that child’s illness would enter remission following the treatment, the risks associated with the treatment, the likelihood of a cure, and the possibility of a normal life if the treatment was ordered. In that case the child suffered from leukemia and had a outrageous red-blood cell count. Doctors had to perform a bone marrow aspiration which required a blood transfusion in order to choose what type of leukemia she had and resolve on a course of treatment.[66]

Courts will generally not order blood transfusions against parents’ religious objections when the situation is not life-threatening. However, there is not a clear line to show just how dire the situation must be for the state to intervene. An example of such a situation was a case involving a child who suffered from polio and required a blood transfusion to have a spinal fusion surgery.[67] His mother objected to the transfusion but would give consent to the surgery. Here, the court stated that a patient need not be “at death’s door” before the court can intervene, yet held that “the state does not have an interest of sufficient magnitude outweighing a parent’s religious beliefs precluding medical treatment, when the child’s life is not immediately imperiled by his physical condition.”[68]

c. Epilepsy and Other Serious Conditions

Although epilepsy is a serious illness, courts have ordered that children suffering from it should not be treated against the wishes of their parents where the afflictions were not likely to become life-threatening without treatment.[69] Also considered were the side effects of the treatment for epileptic seizures which could involve other dangers to the child.[70]

Hydrocephalus is a condition in which fluid is retained in the cranium causing the head to become abnormally enlarged.[71] If left untreated, it could have serious mental and physical effects including reducing the functions of the brain and possible mental retardation.[72] In a case involving this disorder, the court renowned that the child’s life was not immediately in peril even though it was unlikely her life would ever return to “normal.”[73] The court did not find a significant difference between this set and an immediate threat to her life, since if left untreated the disease would endanger the most basic qualities of her life.[74] Interestingly, the court held that because the child was unable to make her enjoy choice about the consequences of following her parents’ religious beliefs, the court was right to step in and order the treatment.[75]

d. Dentistry and other Less Serious Conditions

An Iowa court upheld an order for the surgical removal of the tonsils and adenoids (against their father’s religious objections) of three children who were already wards of the state.[76] There was testimony that all the children suffered from various symptoms which would be cured through the surgery; as a result of their persistent conditions, the two younger children also had ear infections and the oldest child had missed several days of school.[77] The court disagreed with father’s argument that medical treatment could not be ordered over his objection without a showing of a serious threat to the children’s lives or a showing of absolute certainty the surgeries would be successful.[78] Instead, the court held, their statutory duty was to provide ordinary medical care even in less dire circumstances.[79] In another dentistry case, the court held mother was neglecting her children by not allowing dental treatment for cavities and “fractured teeth” because she believed that “God or Jesus” would help her children.[80] The court explained that while she has the true to hold such a belief, as a mother she is required to seek care for her children when a physiological impairment threatens their health.[81]

e. Mental and Emotional Treatments

The station is not limited to ensuring unprejudiced the physical health of a child against his parents’ wishes, but his mental and emotional health as well. Courts have intervened and found parents to be neglectful for not supplying ample “guidance” to their child if the child suffers from mental or emotional “disturbances” and the parent is on notice of his condition.[82] Further, courts can order children into institutional psychiatric treatment against their parents’ consent when psychiatrists or other professions are of the plan that the child has a psychiatric disorder, is potentially dangerous, or needs intensive treatment if there is a showing of neglect or dependency.[83]

As with other types of medical treatment, a parent’s decision to space their child in a mental facility is reviewable by the state, and just because a child disagrees with a parent does not mean he will not be placed in the facility.[84] For the state to intervene in the parent’s decision there must be some clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect, or dependency.[85] The key case in this area[86] stands not only for these presumptions but also serves as an insight as to how the Court views the issue of minor’s mental capacity in medical treatment decisions.

VII. Age of the Child

A child may have different religious beliefs than his parents, and the minor’s values should be considered by the court. However, in most cases before the courts the minor’s religious beliefs were aligned with his parents, so courts do not have to distinguish between them. What if the child’s beliefs were different from his parents’ and the treatment he sought was not life-saving? If the treatment was elective or cosmetic, the court would likely not have a leg to stand on – there has to be a showing of neglect before the court can take custody of a child. It would be very difficult to argue that a parent was medically neglectful because he refuses to let his teenage daughter undergo plastic surgery or have botox. Depending on the age of the child, the court may analyze the case under the worn minor doctrine.

a. Consideration of a Aged Minor

The majority of the children in the cases we have looked at up to this point have concerned infants or young children. Clearly, babies and elementary school children’s opinions, both about the medical treatment and about their religious convictions, will not be considered by the court. Instead, the court appoints a guardian ad litem to advocate for their best interests. However, it makes little sense to have the magic age of 18 be the point at which someone’s opinion has weight in the courts.

The consideration of a “mature minor” is most commonly seen in abortion cases,[87] but some states have venerable minor statutes to give minors the authority to consent to medical treatments.[88] This doctrine, clearly stated, stands for the idea that some minors are ample of making their own medical decisions and should be allowed to do so; these mature minors, like adults, understand the risks, possible complications, and prognosis of the treatment they are choosing to undergo or refusing. The focus is on the capacity of the minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his decision.

Some scholars argue that adolescents should be considered as a separate legal category. For example, under state law minors in Virginia are deemed to be adults for the purposes of consenting to various health care services such as detection of venereal diseases, disbursement of birth control, pregnancy testing, treatment for substance abuse, and the release of their medical records as related to the any of those conditions.[89] The goal of this and other similar statutes is not to recognize minor’s ability to originate medical decisions without parental control, but instead to encourage them to ogle the treatment they might not if they had to inform their parents.

A seminal case in the consideration of a mature minor doctrine, In re E.G., involved a 17-year old who objected to a blood transfusion, but because (on appeal) she was considered a aged minor she was allowed to do so.[90] In this case, the court first adjudicated the minor to be medically neglected, and for several weeks she received blood transfusions. However, the court then took a second peep at the case following several transfusions which her doctors said made her more coherent. At that time the youth testified that she had been studying her faith for several years, truly believed that the transfusions were wrong and fully understood the consequences of her thought. The court renowned that a child’s decision will only be upheld if she presents clear and convincing evidence that she possess the maturity to earn such a decision and understand the consequences.[91] The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in abortion cases involving minors and concluded that although those cases had not extended past reproductive issues, the change was inevitable.[92] Also, the court noted that the state had a sliding scale regarding criminal culpability, which should also be used in this type of case.[93]

The minor’s religious beliefs should be considered, but the court should reserve the right to overrule the minor’s judgment if they feel his decision is not proper, fully researched and informed. At issue in In re J.J,[94] was whether a minor could make a decision based on his religious beliefs to refuse medical treatment for gonorrhea, which if left untreated could cause arthritis, sterility, and possibly death. The court held that while adults have the fair and ability to refuse medical treatments on religious grounds, juveniles do not.[95] Here, the minor admitted he was sexually active and knew that the disease from which he suffered was highly communicable.[96] Freedom of religion can be infringed upon to prevent threats to the community, and here the court had an interest in preventing the spread of this sexually transmitted disease.[97] This court made clear that they held as they did because there were risks posed to society as a whole, not just the minor fervent in the suit. This case is an excellent example of how mature minors should be handled. A case by case analysis to discover the sincerity of a minor’s religious beliefs and a clear showing of his ability to formulate an informed decision about his treatment should give a minor the same right to resolve his fate as an adult.

Perhaps the Supreme Court is wrong about how informed, mature, and reasonable minors can be. Rarely (if ever) citing empirical authority, the Court relies on nothing but their instinctual conception about minor’s ability to advance mature conclusions. Abortion cases are plentiful with language about the ability of minors to make the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. In one such case, the Court stated “Because he may not foresee the consequences of his decision, a minor may not make an enforceable bargain. He may not lawfully work where he pleases, or even attend exhibitions of constitutionally protected adult motion pictures. Persons below a certain age may not marry without parental consent.”[98] As this paper will later address, some scholars argue that minors are being grossly underestimated.[99]

b. Minors Rights in Abortion Cases

In abortion cases, the Supreme Court has insisted that a there must always be a judicial bypass option available to pregnant women under the age of 18 for situations when the pregnant minor’s parents will not consent to the abortion.[100] The idea behind the judicial bypass is if a minor is worn enough to petition the court to exempt her from the parental consent requirement, then she must be mature enough to make the decision to have the abortion. The same rule was followed in Hodgson v. Minnesota,[101] where the court ruled the requirement of both parents being notified of minor’s decision to have an abortion was not in furtherance of any state interest, was unreasonable and an unconstitutional burden on the minor’s right to have an abortion.[102] The judicial bypass procedure was upheld.[103]

Perhaps the case that most convincingly stands in support for a conventional minor rule took place when a 15-year-old was pregnant and wanted to keep her child, but her mother attempted to have her declared a dependent child because she refused to have an abortion.[104] The court disagreed with her mother and issued a protective order to the daughter which disallowed her mother from interfering with her decision to keep the baby.[105] The language of the court is quite on point here:

Parents may and should play a meaningful role in counseling their children on all matter involving their well-being. Moreover, a minor’s decision on whether or not to abort is of such far reaching consequence and sensitivity as to bawl out for the understanding counsel of parents who care. And yet, such counsel must originate from the premise that it is the child who has the ultimate right to decide. Children are not chattel of their parents. Rather they are citizens in their own right, endowed with certain fundamental freedoms of which they may not be divested by parental fiat. The apt to give birth is among those freedoms.[106]

Abortion, perhaps even more so than any other medical procedure, has deep emotional and psychological as well as health considerations keen in the decision process. It is a deeply personal decision, and it should not be left up to someone other than the person carrying the child. The court went on to say, “Inevitably, there comes a point in time when the child’s decision making process reaches fruition, with or without parental input, and a firm choice is made… In deciding to give birth, she has exercised a personal liberty guaranteed to her by the 14^th Amendment.”[107]

While favorable to the rights of juveniles, the mature minor rule is not always followed. The cases that do adopt the doctrine do so according to state law, not constitutional challenges. For example, Georgia does not survey a “dilapidated minor’s” right to refuse unwanted medical care.[108] In Novak, the court states that an adult’s right to refuse medical treatment and a minor’s right to consent to an abortion are not the same right to privacy, and the statute allowing adults to refuse medical care does not apply to minors.[109] The court reasons that the exceptions for stale minors – namely the right to for minors who are married or pregnant to consent to medical care – does not support the mature minor rule but instead shows why people under the age of 18 are not vested with the same legal powers as adults.[110] Also, the court notes the minor did not present any authority under state or federal law to show the mature minor rule should be followed.[111] This ruling completely ignores the reality that not all people under 18 are incapable of making their own reasonable, competent decisions. It is irrational to pick that an 18^th birthday brings wisdom that was unattainable the day before.

IX. Cosmetic Treatments for Minors

It is clear that the court will require life saving treatment for a child over his parents’ religious objection in most cases, but when the medical arrangement sought can be classified as elective or cosmetic in nature the analysis involves a lower standard of scrutiny. There is no hybrid claim of two fundamental rights which would invoke heightened scrutiny under Smith,[112] and the state does not need to show a compelling interest to override a parent’s decision to refuse plastic surgery to a minor.

In Re Sampson[113] involved a 15-year-old child who needed surgery and a blood transfusion to improve the appearance of his face and neck which was massively disfigured as the result of a non-fatal disease. His mother objected not to the surgery, but to the transfusion; however, the surgery could not be done without the blood.[114] The court ordered the procedure because the evidence showed the child was frequently absent from school and was several grade levels behind in his education. The court relied on Seiferth,[115] where a 14-year-old suffering from harelip and cleft palate required plastic surgery, but his father refused to consent; there the court stated neglect proceedings should not be small to drastic or mortal circumstances before they can order surgery. In both cases the sought after treatment was not life-saving or urgent in nature, but the courts allowed them to take place because they improved the quality of life for the children involved.

In a factually similar Canadian case, a 20-year-old wanted to have facial marks caused by acne removed from his face, and the court allowed the treatment because he was one month away from the age of majority and the court felt he was capable of notion the consequences.[116] Interestingly, our neighbor to the North uses a different age at which majority is obtained. Does this not serve to show that age 18 was arbitrarily chosen, and thus, the rule of majority at 18 could be changed or bent when the circumstances permit?

The opinions and religious beliefs of children who truly are “mature minors” should be given a significant amount of weight regarding medical decisions in the court system. Some minors do not have the same religious convictions as their parents, and should not be forced to forego medical procedures because of their parents’ beliefs. When the treatment or procedure in examine is not life-saving or urgent in nature, the child’s opinion should matter even more. The concern of the court is that a child will make a choice that threatens their well-being, health, or safety. If the diagram at issue is cosmetic or elective, one would assume the risks are much less than other types of medical treatments. Therefore, the court’s main concern is lessened if not gone all together.

Often, the main purpose of cosmetic surgeries is to improve the self-esteem or confidence of the patient. While it is hard to believe any parent would not want that for their child, if a parent did object to the plot for religious reasons and a mature minor did not share those convictions, the child’s wishes should trump. It is, after all, the minor’s body and right to personal autonomy. In all likelihood, a court faced with this issue would simply defer to the inevitable event of the minor’s 18^th birthday and tell her she would be able to have the rhinoplasty or breast augmentation done later.

X. Adolescence as a Separate Legal Category

Criminally, juveniles and adults are not even in the same court system. However, on occasion a juvenile will be tried as an adult for his/her crime and is subject to the same penalties as someone over the age of majority. The current trend seems to be blurring a once clear line. If exceptions can be made in that context, why not in the context of medical decisions? We call juveniles “delinquents” not “criminals,” and usually they cannot be sentenced to capital punishment. In Thompson v. Oklahoma,[117] the Supreme Court said this was because of the inexperience, lack of education and lesser intelligence of minors, which make them less capable of understanding the consequences of their actions than adults. Consequently, if a state does allow for capital punishment of minors, generally the starting age is 16, not 18.[118]

Exemplified by Thompson and many other cases, scholars argue that the court does not base its conclusion of lowered capacity on psychological studies or other evidence.[119] Instead, the Court makes generalizations about minors’ ability to make judgments and decisions. People create at different rates, and children seem to mature sooner today than ever before. The Court should not be turned off by empirical research but instead embrace it and use it to better the judicial system.

The field of child psychology has come a long way since the juvenile court system was created, and many of these cases were decided. Most judges sat in Psychology 101 their freshman year of college. Many scholars cite to Jean Piaget, famed psychologist who set out children’s phases of development.[120] Piaget established four phases of development from birth through adolescence and concluded, in normal development, reasoning abilities have formed by age 15. In the final state, we learn how to consider hypothetical situations, how to reason our way to a decision by weighing all the possibilities, and rationalize the costs and benefits of our choices. One stare matched religious development to cognitive development and reached a similar conclusion as Piaget – that by age 14-15 children have entered the final stage of development and are capable of abstract religious thinking.[121] The American Psychological Association agrees with this presumption writing “it is now generally accepted that by mid-adolescence (14-15) the great majority of adolescents do not differ from adults in their capacities to understand and reason about medical and psychological treatment alternatives, or in their abilities to comprehend and consider risks and benefits regarding treatment alternatives.”[122]

While at age 15 most people regain the necessary cognitive skills to make a decision, many of us are unable to do so even throughout adulthood. Peer pressure, selfish desires, need for social acceptance and a host of other factors can weigh heavily on our decision making processes – no different than for juveniles. Some literature points out that minors are more susceptible to peer pressure than adults,[123] but to say that is true of all minors discounts those who are primitive enough to be above the influence. It is these minors, with deeply held beliefs, that the mature minor doctrine is meant to serve.

Citizens of the United States, regardless of their age, have the right to free exercise of their religion. Prince, Yoder, and Reynolds all show that while parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing and care of their children that right will be subject to governmental restrictions when it opposes public policy or the best interests of the child. When the decisions being made are regarding medical care for a child, the state can intervene in a parent’s choice with a showing of abuse, neglect, or dependency. Upon such showing and depending on the nature of the treatment sought, the court can order a medical arrangement be performed on a child regardless of the parent’s religious beliefs. If a treatment option has a high risk of failure, is highly invasive, toxic or life threatening in itself, the court will be more likely to respect the parents’ decision than if the treatment was routine, painless and had a high probability of success.

When the minor reaches adolescence, the location gets more complicated. Regardless of what the Court has held or implied in the past, normally developing teenagers are aptly situated to make mature, considerate, and informed decisions regarding their medical care. Empirical evidence and studies have shown that by age 15 the brain has completed all the stages of development, and people at that age are just as capable of making decisions as people past the magic age of 18. Unprejudiced as abortion cases have allowed juveniles to have a judicial bypass to exempt them from parental consent requirements, other medical procedures should allow for increased participation and input from the patient in courtroom discussions.

Our knowledge of child development and human psychology has evolved, and worthy studies have shown that we have underestimated the abilities of our young people. If someone shows a positive view of the consequences of their decision, we refer to that as capacity and it should not matter what year they were born. The time has arrive for a new legal category – the feeble minor. I recognize that this may be a slippery slope – if these minors can make their own medical decisions, should they be allowed to vote? Drive a car? Drink alcohol? The analysis on whether one should be considered a “mature minor” must be made on a case by case basis with special attention paid to the particular minor’s ability to understand the nature of the treatment, the options, and the prognosis. Mature minor’s religious beliefs should be taken seriously by the court and their opinions should be given substantial weight in the proceeding.

[1]In re Willmann, 493 N.E.2d 1380 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986); Matter of Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 104 N.E.2d 769 (Ill. 1952); Muhlenberg Hospital v. Patterson, 320 A.2d 518 (N.J. 1974).

[2]Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).

[3]Id. at 173.

[4]Id. at 170.

[5]Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

[6]Id. at 215.

[7]Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

[8]Id.

[9]Yoder, 406 U.S. at 233.

[10]Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).

[11]Id. at 166.

[12]Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 245-246.

[13]In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

[14]Id. at 230.

[15] U.S. Const. amend. I.

[16]Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 303 (1940).

[17]Id. at 303.

[18]Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:19-20; Leviticus 17:14; I Chronicles 11:16-19; II Samuel 23:15-17.

[19]Newmark v. Williams, 588 A.2d 1108, 1110 n.2 (Del. 1991).

[20]Id.

[21]Id.

[22]In re Tuttendario, 21 Pa. Dist. 561 (Pa. D. 1912).

[23]Id. at 561.

[24]Id. at 561.

[25] Black’s Law Dictionary, http://www.lawschool.westlaw.com/search/blackslaw (last visited Nov. 16, 2006).

[26]People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 104 N.E.2d 769, 773 (Ill. 1952).

[27]Matter of Hofbauer, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 940 (N.Y. 1979).

[28]Id. at 941.

[29] In re Phillip B., 92 Cal.App.3d 796, 802 (Cal. App. 1979); In re Eric B., 189 Cal.App.3d 996, 1005 (Cal. App. 1987).

[30] Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc., Religious Exemptions from Health Care for Children, (2003) athttp://www.childrenshealthcare.org (last visited Nov. 15, 2006).

[31] Conn.Gen Stat. Ann. § 17a-104 (West 2006).

[32] Massachusetts Citizens for Children, Death by Religious Exemption, (1992) athttp://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_8.html (last visit Nov. 15, 2006).

[33] 42 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (1996).

[34] Massachusetts Citizens for Children, supra note 28.

[35]Id.

[36]Id.

[37] 45 CFR § 1340.14 (1983).

[38]State v. Miskimens,490 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).

[39] Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.22 (2006).

[40] The Entanglement Prong of the 1^st Amendment seeks to ensure that government and religion do not intrude into the precincts of one another. (See Lemon, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971)). An entanglement would be present where the government is required to supervise or inspect any type of religious affairs or practice.

[41]Miskimens, 490 N.E.2d 931, 934-935 (1984).

[42]Id. at 935.

[43]Id. at 936.

[44]Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940).

[45]Lemon, 403 U.S. 602.

[46]Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005).

[47]Id.

[48]Id. at 722.

[49]In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 1.

[50]West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 383 U.S. 503 (1969).

[51]Parham v. J. R..,442 U.S. 584 (1979).

[52]People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 104 N.E.2d 769 (Ill. 1952); Muhlenberg Hospital v. Patterson, 320 A.2d 518 (N.J. 1974); Matter of Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); In re Willmann, 493 N.E.2d 1380 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986).

[53]In re Willmann, 493 N.E.2d 1380 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986).

[54]Id. at 1389.

[55]Matter of Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d at 425.

[56]Id. at 427.

[57]Newmark v Williams, 588 A.2d at 1108.

[58]Id. at 1114.

[59]Id. at 1117.

[60]Id. at 1110.

[61]In re Hudson, 126 P.2d 765 (Wash. 1942).

[62]People ex rel. Wallace v. Labrenz, 104 N.E.2d at 773.

[63]Muhlenberg Hospital v. Patterson, 320 A.2d at 518.

[64]Id.

[65]Matter of McCauley, 565 N.E.2d 411 (Mass. 1991).

[66]Id.

[67]In re Green, 292 A.2d 387 (Pa. 1972).

[68]Id. at 392.

[69]People In Interest of E., 614 P.2d 873 (Colo. 1980).

[70]Id. at 875.

[71]Matter of Jensen, 633 P.2d 1302 (Or. 1981).

[72]Id. at 1303.

[73]Id. at 1303.

[74]Id. at 1306.

[75]Id. at 1306.

[76]In Re Karwath, 199 N.W.2d 147 (Iowa 1972).

[77]Id. at 149.

[78]Id. at 150.

[79]Id. at 149.

[80]In Re S, 380 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y.Fam.Ct. 1976).

[81]Id. at 622.

[82]In re Carstairs, 115 N.Y.S.2d 314 (Dom. Rel. Ct. 1952); U.S. v. S.A., 129 F.3d 995 (Minn. 1997).

[83]In re Weintraub, 71 A.2d 823 (Pa. 1950); Parham,442 U.S. 584 at 604.

[84]Parham at 604.

[85]Id.

[86]Id.

[87]Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 60 F.3d 816 (3d Cir. 1995); Belloti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 95 (1976).

[88]Ala. Code § 22-8A-4 (Supp. 2001); Ga. Code Ann. § 31- 32-3(a) (2001); W. Va. Code § 16-30-4(a) (2001); N.D. Cent. Code § 23-06.4-03 (2002); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 137-H:3 (1996).

[89] Virginia Code § 54.1-2969 (Lexis 2002).

[90]In re E.G., 549 N.E.2d 322 (Ill. 1989)

[91]Id. at 327.

[92] Jonathan F. Will, My God My Choice: The Mature Minor Doctrine and Adolescent Refusal of Life-Saving or Sustaining Medical Treatment Based upon Religious Beliefs, 22 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 233, 272 (2006); In re E.G., 515 N.E.2d 322 at 325.

[93]Inre E.G., 549 N.E.2d 322 at 326.

[94]In reJ. J., 582 N.E.2d 1138 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

[95]Id. at 1140.

[96]Id. at 1141.

[97]Id. at 1141.

[98]Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 95 (1976)(Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in section).

[99] Elizabeth Scott, Legal Construction of Adolescence, 29 Hofstra L. Rev. 547, 555-57 (2000); Gary B. Melton, Toward “Personhood” for Adolescents, 38 Am. Psychologist 99 (1983).

[100]Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 60 F.3d at 816; Belloti v. Baird, 443 U.S. at 622.

[101]Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990).

[102]Id. at 418.

[103]Id. at 420.

[104]In re Mary P, 111 Misc.2d 532 (N.Y.Fam.Ct. 1981).

[105]Id. at 536.

[106]Id. at 535.

[107]Id. at 534.

[108]Novak v. Cobb County-Kennestone Hosp. Authority, 849 F.Supp. 1559 (N.D.Ga. 1994).

[109]Id. at 1576.

[110]Id.

[111]Id.

[112]Smith, 494 U.S. 872.

[113]In Re Sampson, 278 N.E.2d 918 (N.Y. 1972).

[114]Id.

[115]In the Matter of Seiferth, 127 N.E.2d 820 (N.Y. 1955).

[116]Johnson v. Wellesley Hospital, 17 D.L.R.3d 139 (Ontario Sup. Ct. 1970).

[117]Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 835 (1988).

[118] Larry Cunningham, A Question of Capacity: Towards a Comprehensive and Consistent Vision of Children and their Site under the Law, 10 U.C. Davis J. Juvenile L. & Pol’y 275 (2006).

[119] Elizabeth Scott, Legal Construction of Adolescence, 29 Hofstra L. Rev. 547, 555-57 (2000); Gary B. Melton, Toward “Personhood” for Adolescents, 38 Am. Psychologist 99 (January 1983).

[120] See Cunningham, supra note 114 at 282; Melton, supra note 115 at 100.

[121] Behold Jonathan F. Will, supra note 80 (citing Ronald Goldman, Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (Western Printing Services Limited 1965)(1964)).

[122]Hartigan v. Zbaraz, 484 U.S. 171 (1987)(No. 85- 673), 1987 WL 880965 (Brief for American Psychological Association as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees).

[123]Id.

Udayvladv Tawoda- local musician from Clarion, PA

So, I was looking for something interesting in the local music scene, and thought I’d check out what was happening in Clarion, the closest college town. At the opening of a groovy little art shop called, “Art Funkels”, I was drawn in by the amazing sound of a Native American flute and knew I had found the music I was looking for. This flute player was like no one I’ve seen locally…you could recount he’d been places, lived experiences bigger than those of most folks around here. His name was Tawoda and here’s what I found out…

Mama B: “So, Tawoda,…what an engrossing name. Can you mutter me about your name? It’s quite unique, is it a Native American name? I don’t want to offend you, but I was wondering if you were indeed, Native? “

Tawoda: “Yes, it is. It is Cherokee. It means shadow hawk. My grandmother explained it to me in this way. I am to be a shadow to other people’s beliefs, to honor and not offend and hawk meaning to hold the aggressive vision of the dreams and goals in your life. So, I try hard in my life to live up to that.”

Mama B: “Wow, that is so interesting…I care for to hear about people who have meaningful names.”

Mama B: “So, you’re opening for Art Funkels…how are you acquainted with this cool dinky shop? “

Tawoda: “I am on the board of directors for the shop. The vision of the shop is to showcase local artists and to provide arts programming to local children in Clarion.”

Mama B: “Are you playing anywhere else at the moment? “

Tawoda:“Actually, I am working with a musician from Erie named Greg Ross. We are doing some recording with my flute and his guitar.” “I also consume my music into prisons and schools as outreach for a non-profit called Integrated World Arts Inc.” “Other than that, I’m always up for a jam session with friends in Meadville and New York, or anywhere!”

Mama B: “Can you tell me about your musical background? You know, like your training, any bands you’ve been in…tell me about your travel through music.”

Tawoda: “Hmm, Well, Music has always been very important to me. Seems there’s always been instruments around me. I grew up around instruments and jam sessions. I’ve never taken any formal lessons, I’m self-taught. I’ve played in numerous bands including, CIA, Northern Lights, and a few others, but mostly I’ve played by myself.”

Mama B: “What was your most memorable show? “

Tawoda: ” Oh, it would have to be when my friend Gordon and I were playing for a retirement show and a tiny broken-down lady whispered loudly “Look, one of them has no hair at all and the other has hair all the way down to his butt!”…She announced it with astronomical authority and it took all we had to hold it together!”

Mama B: ” Who or what inspired you to begin training? What were your musical influences? “

Tawoda: “Well, I think the need to scream myself is what drove me to it. I had no notion that I’d ever be in a band or play for other people. I started out as a drummer…anyway, hmmm…Some of my influences were Eric Clapton, The Beatles, a lot of MoTown stuff…I had a lot of influences.”

Mama B: “Which musicians do you feel drawn to as mentors? “

Tawoda: “Eric Clapton because he’s gone through some very real experiences and portrays that well through his music. He uses his music to express his pain..an example is when his son died.”

Mama B: ” I’m dying to know…what’s in your I-pod suitable now? “

Tawoda: “Janie’s got a gun…Aerosmith, James Taylor, Gordon Lightfoot, Barry Manilow Carlos Nakai, and Raphael Bejarano.”

Mama B: “What are your future plans musically? “

Tawoda: ” To keep meeting other musicians and collaborating with others…I’m enjoying mixing Tibetan bowls with guitars and my flute and drum. I plan to continue making recordings and derive a market for them.”

Mama B: “Do you currently play any original music? “

Tawoda: ” Yes! I have a song I’d like to sing for you now! No, really, I love to compose my own pieces and do so regularly.”

Mama B: “What are you trying to scream through your music? “

Tawoda:. ” Umm…Right now, I am just writing to express my spirit. Writing to get my things out, not for any certain audience.”

Mama B: “Do you play strictly flute or are you a jack of all musical trades? “

Tawoda: “Whoa, lookout! Not of all of them, but I do play other instruments…I play flute, drum, guitar, keyboard, harmonica, conch shell.”

Mama B: “Which of those is your favorite instrument to play? Or do you have a fave? “

Tawoda: “I enjoy all of them, they’re all useful for expressing different things.”

Mama B: “How would you picture the sound of Tawoda? “

Tawoda: “Cosmic! My music will take you anywhere you want to go….just close your eyes and enjoy the journey.”

Mama B: “What does playing music do for you? How does it benefit you as a person? “

Tawoda: ” It helps me earn my emotions out in a healthy way. I enjoy learning it, hearing it and physically playing it. It serves as a release at the end of a long day.”

Mama B: “Do you find your music attracts chicks? Ever have any undergarments thrown in your direction? “

Tawoda:“Well, I did find that my dancing attracted girls when I first started music…but no, never any undergarments but I’ve certainly connected with other people through music….”

Mama B: “When you’re not opening for funky petite art shops, how do you spend your time? ”

Tawoda:.”I enjoy playing music with my children, watching them beat the drums and play their own style of funky music. I teach martial arts in the local community. I travel as an educational consultant for teachers of at-risk youth. I love to create art and I’m just diving into the world of photography which speaks to me as another means of self-expression.”

Mama B: “When and where can folks hear you play next? “

Tawoda: ” In my front room, next Wednesday when I return from Connecticut. I will bathe around 7:00 and then I’ll start playing around 7:30! Other than that, accurate now, I’ll be in the studio working on a recording.”

Mama B: “Is there any contact info you’d like to create available to fans? “

Tawoda: “Well, you know, they can contact me by email at busselltribe@yahoo.com or via my website at www.integratedworldarts.com. Thanks for the wait on! It’s always nice to notice out in the audience and gaze a few faces.”

Mama B: “Well, I was honored to hear you play tonight, you were very effective at drawing people in and the music felt tremendous! Thanks for taking a moment to give me the inside scoop on the music of Udayvladv Tawoda…I hope to hear much more from you and wish you all the best!”

Tawoda: “Thank you, Mama B…witness for my next cd!”

I: Public Education in America
Formal institutions that provided education were not part of the American landscape before the revolutionary war. Outside of large towns in New England, schools were not required by law. The government did not provide for free access to education. Yet, the vast majority of Americans in the colonies were educated to some extent and most could read the newspaper, the Bible, and compute their taxes. This level of literacy came as a result of informal institutions of education created by individuals and local government. Generally, the creation of a school or something that resembled it occurred because of a town or wealthy individuals’ decision to expend resources to hire a teacher or build a school. Since the education of youth was not governmentally funded, schools were diverse in size and teaching quality varied greatly.
Even though no organized system of schools existed, the basic education of townspeople and villagers was seen as an critical and integral part of daily life. In towns that could afford them, there were “dame schools” that catered to children. At these dame schools, small children were given “hornbooks” from which to learn the alphabet and prayer. Older boys went to grammar schools where they studied math, Latin, and philosophy. The wealthier of these male children would probably go on to college or university. Poor children or children in remote areas may not have had schools near them at all and most probably at most had some form of education at home where families often read and discussed the Bible out-loud. At the least, most individuals were taught to read. It is important to tag that while pre-revolution colonists made no move to provide a system of schools, there is no doubt that education or at least literacy were seen important parts of life in the American colonies. Laws such as the one found in seventeenth-century Connecticut requiring children be taught to “read the Inglish tounge” existed in many of the larger towns. The goal of having a literate populace served both religious and civil purposes, and laws in the early colonies articulate this fair. In Massachusetts, citizens were to “read & understand the principles of religion & the capitall lawes of this country.” Similarly, a 1696 Maryland law discussed the education of youth in “good Letters and manners.” In Pennsylvania, a 1683 ordinance required children to read and write the scriptures by age twelve. This was a Connecticut law from 1642. The law was changed to add writing to it in 1647. Similar laws existed in Massachusetts. Deborah Keller-Cohen. Alternative Literacies: In School and Beyond, 14 Anthropology & Educ. Q. 299, 307(1993).

The ability to read and write in early America allowed individuals to interact with others in their community. While the opportunity to be social may seem inconsequential to Americans today who appreciate modern conveniences, the limited resources of the typical American in the seventeenth century created a society that was distinctly social and collaborative in nature. Colonial society believed reading and writing were essentially linked to speaking. It was commonly thought that “reading is nothing but speaking what one sees in a book, as if he were expressing his own sentiments, as they arise in his mind.” Literacy offered the opportunity to participate in religious activities like bible reading and discussion and civil activities like letter writing and social clubs that allowed colonists to protest or communicate different ideas.

After the revolution, education was seen as a means to both strengthen American democracy and as a get of distancing itself from British culture. Early on, Thomas Jefferson advocated a “crusade against ignorance.” He wanted to “establish and improve the law for educating common people…[because] general education will enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.” As a member of the Virginia Assembly in 1778, Jefferson proposed legislation to guarantee three years of public schooling to all children, with advanced education for those who showed promise. This radical view of providing education to the masses was soundly rejected by his fellow assemblymen. His proposal entitled “Bill for the More General Diffusion of knowledge” was up for voting three times between 1779 and 1817. Each time Jefferson attempted to persuade the Virginia Assembly to ratify the bill for public education, it was defeated.

The mid-nineteenth century marked a major turning point for the education system in the United States. By 1880, many states passed compulsory school attendance laws for children and allotted funds for the building of schools and the hiring of teachers. Yet, enrollment was not free and most schools still lacked wide-spread supervision and retained the variations in quality, curriculum, and size that affected colonial schools. The notion of an organized statewide school system was only beginning to surface. Between 1830 and 1840, the educational reformer Horace Mann physically inspected over one thousand schools in Massachusetts and noted that the state took better care of its livestock than of its children in school. After the assessment, Mann held a series of public meetings to reveal a unusual system he called “accepted school.” He proposed that the schools would “succor all boys and girls, and teach a favorite body of knowledge that would give each student an equal chance in life.” Mann wanted the system to be free to the public, funded by tax dollars with standards set and enforced by the state. He thought that “education…beyond all other devises of human origin is the equalizer of the conditions of men, the great balance wheel of the social machinery.” Mann’s proposal was not met with enthusiasm by local governments. Clearly, his audience was keenly aware of the notions of federalism and importance of independence of local governance and the plan that a dominating state power may remove from them the authority to regulate a local function that it had controlled since colonial times created much opposition to the reform. Moreover, citizens were unhappy with the possibility of the increased tax burden required to fund Mann’s vision. While Mann’s ideas were resisted at first, the reformer’s goals of creating free uniform education funded by taxes and a state run board of education sparked much debate about the state of education around the country. By 1840, the common public school movement had begun to take bear, particularly in large cities. The current and large wave of immigrants arriving from Europe could enroll their children in public schools in Unique York City that were free and start to all.

The first half of the 20th century presented the tax-supported public school on its way to resembling the new American public school system. Primary school was free and generally offered eight years of instruction. Local school boards continued to make all important decisions about personnel and curriculum. Most American schools at this time were taught around the “the three Rs.” This arrangement was “basic skills” oriented and relied heavily on recitations and spelling bees. However, this curriculum failed to accommodate the changing population in American cities where most new enrollees could not speak the English language. Educational experts felt that the curriculum’s reliance on verbal studies and academic subjects was the wrong scheme to educate children. Instead of focusing on scholarly subjects like history and English for everyone, they advocated setting children on “tracks” that were often vocational and introduced “numerous specialized occupational programs for children who were expected to become industrial and commercial workers, domestic workers, and housewives.” Children were categorized through the use of intelligence tests that were supposed to “identify students’ innate, fixed intelligence.” The children were then taught according to the results of their tests. Using this process labeled “progressive,” the school systems tried to absorb millions of children in the hopes of preparing them for the real world. The plans turned studies away from academic subjects, restricting those topics only to students who were idea to be college-bound. It soon became clear that “progressive education” was not going to work either. When a mayor in Unusual York City implemented the “Gary Plan” that rotated children from vocational facilities within their school, immigrant parents rioted during the 1917 mayoral campaign wrathful that their children were being denied the chance to prepare for higher education. With aptitude tests and the assignment of vocational or academic tracks becoming mostly standard by the 1930’s and 1940’s, public school access was nearly universal.

While education reform was happening for white Americans, African American children continued to face immense difficulty gaining access to public education. Prior to the Civil War, African Americans who lived in the South were mostly slaves and had little or no access to education at all. Even in the North where blacks were entitled to go to public school, they were separated from whites and usually placed in limited and inferior facilities. In 1849, Roberts v. City of Boston upheld educational segregation. Benjamin Roberts had tried and failed to enroll his daughter at several white valuable schools. Eventually, she enrolled at a gloomy school that was located past five white schools in the same neighborhood. Roberts brought suit under an 1845 law that permitted the recovery of damages from the city for students who were illegally excluded from public schools. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found that in “classifying the children, [the school committee] have not violated any principle of equality, inasmuch as they have provided a school with competent instructors for the colored children, where they enjoy equal advantages of instruction with those enjoyed by the white children.” It wasn’t until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that separate was finally deemed unequal.

The task of “Americanizing” immigrants from numerous distinct cultures was not the only driving force that led to the massive expansion and reformation of the American public school system in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Plainly evident in the work of educational reformers, Brown’s judicial analysis and even the poorly thought out and ultimately discriminatory efforts to categorize children as vocational or academic is the Jeffersonian ideal that education is the foundation for successful daily life, democracy and meritocracy where even a person born into the poorest family may prove his worth. Even though there eventually came a backlash in the 1950’s and 1960’s criticizing the lowering of standards when public schools became hyper-focused on “real world” skills, the public school retained some semblance of the Jeffersonian ideals of developing policies that attempted to accommodate the educational needs of a tall and growing population. While the progeny of wide-spread singling out of children as inherently more or less intelligent continues to haunt the American educational landscape, one viewpoint on this is that what may have been at the root of this inequitable treatment was the intention to educate every child with the ultimate goal of forming law-abiding, useful adults who would be successful in life. Indeed, even with some misguided steps, education has always been an primary ideal within the American perspective.

Bibliography:
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
Bernard, Sheila Curran & Sarah Mondale, School: The Record of American Public Education, 22 (Beacon Press 2001).
Id.

Dates enacted and age requirements under compulsory education acts: Alabama1957-16, Alaska 1929 7-16, Arizona 1899 6-16, Arkansas 1909 5-17, California 1874 6-18, Colorado 1889 unavailable, Connecticut 1872 7-18, Delaware1907 5-16, District of Columbia 1864 5-18, Florida 1915 6-16, Georgia 1916 6-16, Hawaii1896 6-18, Idaho 1887 7-16, Illinois 1883 7-16, Indiana 1897 7-16, Iowa1902 6-16, Kansas 1874 7-18, Kentucky 1896 6-16, Louisiana 1910 7-17, Maine1875 7-17, Maryland 1902 5-16, Massachusetts 1852 6-16, Michigan 1871 6-16, Minnesota 1885 7-16, Mississippi 1918 6-17, Missouri 1905 7-16, Montana 1883 7-16, Nebraska 1887 7-16, Nevada 1873 7-17, New Hampshire 1871 6-16, New Jersey 1875 6-16, New Mexico 1891 5-18, New York 1874 6-16, North Carolina 1907 7-16, North Dakota 1883 7-16, Ohio 1877 6-18, Oklahoma 1907 5-18, Oregon 1889 7-18, Pennsylvania 1895 8-17, Rhode Island 1883 6-16, South Carolina 1915 5-16, South Dakota 1883 6-16, Tennessee 1905 6-17, Texas 1915 6-18, Utah 1890 6-18, Vermont 1867 6-16, Virginia 1908 5-18, Washington 1871 8-17, West Virginia 1897 6-16, Wisconsin 1879 6-18, Wyoming 1876 6-16. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics, State Compulsory School Attendance Laws, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html (last updated 2004).

Horace Mann became secretary of education in Massachusetts at the newly formed board of education in 1837. He was the first such official in the United States. He traveled throughout the state “by riding on horseback from district to district reviewing the actual physical facility.” Mann visited one thousand schools over the course of six years and wrote detailed reports on their physical condition. He found that most lacked adequate light, heat, and ventilation. In one particular school, “there were no blackboards and no standardized textbooks, so pupils spent hours memorizing or reciting passages from books they brought from home, no matter how outdated or irrelevant. One book on penmanship devoted an entire page to the proper writing of the letter O at a 53-degree slant. A geography text described a sea serpent found off the Unusual England coast.” Bernard, supra n. 5, at 26.

Even into the early 20th century it is easy to see why people were so opposed to Mann’s idea of state-wide control of local schools. For example, statistics that compared federal, state, and local school funding from 1919-1920 showed the total expenditure for school funding was 83.2% by local government, 16.5% by place government and a mere 0.3% by the federal government. The funding provided by the state and local governments began to even out only in the 1960s with status surpassing local funding in the late 1970s. Notwithstanding the increase, state funding never exceeds local funding by more than 6% even into 2001. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Funding for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1919-1920 to 2000-2001, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112651.html (last updated 2006).

Horace Mann is seen as “the patron saint of public education. He talked about the great leveling effect of education. Many consider that Mann’s view of public education is intertwined with Jefferson’s in that both of them disliked the view that the family you were being born into would settle your fate. Bernard, supra n. 5, at 31.

Mann’s idea of accepted education like many of his contemporaries saw schools as being wholly non-sectarian. Common (public) schools, especially those that catered to immigrants, were to be just that-common. The children were to read the Protestant prayers and learn Protestant religious ideas. The King James Bible was read. Protestant hymns were sung and it was not outlandish for textbooks to be anti-Irish or anti-Catholic. This was part of Mann’s vision was universal education and what he saw as the important “Americanization” of immigrants. Id.

Douglas J. Ficker, From Roberts to Plessy: Educational Segregation and the “Separate but Equal Doctrine”, 84, 4, J. of Negro History Doctrine 301, 308 (1999).

Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 203 (1849).
Brown v. Bd of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Regardless of where you live in the United States, you may be eligible to receive financial assistance with your energy costs through Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP). The LIHEAP is a federally funded program that provides monetary assistance for those that cannot, or have difficulty in, paying their energy bills.

Prolonged exposure to extreme heat or cold, even in the safety of your own home, can lead to sickness, hospitalization, and even death. If you cannot afford to pay your electric bill, you don’t have to endure excessive heat or dangerous cold temperatures. Take advantage of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programs in your site and get the help you need to live in a honorable and comfortable environment.

There are specific qualifications that must be met in order to be eligible to receive benefits from Outrageous Income Home Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP). If you are interested in getting help paying your electric bill, or just want to learn more about the programs offered in your state, click on any of the links below.

Listed below are the links for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program for each of the 50 states. Each of the links will take you directly to the state website offering the assistance. Once there you can find out all the information you need, and in some cases, you may even be able to directly apply for energy assistance.

Alabama – Or call (334) 242-4909

Alaska – Or call (888) 342-9291

Arizona – Or call (800) 582-5706

Arkansas – Or call (501) 682-8726

California – Or call (866) 675-6623

Colorado – Or call (866) 432-8435

Connecticut – Or call (800) 842-1132

Delaware – Or call (800) 464-4357

Florida – Or call (850) 488-8466

Georgia – Or call (800) 869-1150

Hawaii – Or call (808) 586-5740

Idaho – Or call (208) 442-9991

Illinois – Or call (877) 411-9276

Indiana – Or call (800) 622-4973

Iowa – Or call (515) 281-4204

Kansas – Or call (800) 432-0043

Kentucky – Or call (502) 564-3440

Louisiana – Or call (888) 454-2001

Maine – Or call (800) 452-4668

Maryland – Or call (800) 352-1446

Masschusettes – Or call (800) 632-8175

Michigan – Or call (800) 292-5650

Minnesota – Or call (800) 657-3805

Outrageous Income Home Energy Assistance Programs – Page 2

Mississippi – Or call (800) 421-0762

Missouri – Or call (573) 526-4836

Montana – Or call (800) 332-2272

Nebraska – Or call (800) 430-3244

Nevada – Or call (800) 992-0900

New Hampshire – Or call (603) 271-8317

New Jersey – Or call (800) 510-3102

New Mexico – Or call (800) 648-7167

New York - Or call (800) 342-3009

North Carolina - Or call (800) 662-7030

North Dakota – Or call (701) 328-2065

Ohio – Or call (800) 282-0880

Oklahoma – Or call (866) 411-1877

Oregon – Or call (800) 453-5511

Pennsylvania – Or call (866) 857-7095

Rhode Island – Or call (401) 222-3003

South Carolina – Or call (803) 734-0662

South Dakota – Or call (800) 233-8503

Tennessee – Or call (615) 313-4766

Texas – Or call (877) 399-8939

Utah – Or call (877) 488-3233

Vermont – Or call (800) 479-6151

Virginia – Or call (800) 230-6977

Washington – Or call (360) 725-2855

West Virginia – Or call (800) 642-8589

Wisconsin – Or call (866) 432-8947

Wyoming – Or call (800) 246-4221

In addition to learning about home energy assistance programs, you can also learn more about reducing energy costs and your overall monthly spending with the following helpful articles.

Reduce your monthly spending - Slash your monthly spending by evaluating your bills. Here are several ideas to help put money in your pocket and eliminating excess spending.

10 ways to lower your electric bill - Discover 10 easy eays to lower your electric bill. Save money on your energy bill by following these easy tips.

How to cut your grocery bill in half - Seven simple suggestions to help you learn how to cut your grocery bill in half. Stop paying paunchy price for your groceries! Utilize these tips to nick your grocery spending today.

** To read more from this author, CLICK HERE.

SOURCE:

Applicable LIHEAP websites

Introduction

Child assist in Florida is based on guidelines. The guidelines are worked out using the combined net income of both parents, with each parent paying a percentage based on the combined total net income of both parents.

Income and Expenses

Many people mediate if they underestimate their income, the paying spouse’s help will be higher. This is not always factual, as the amount paid is a percentage. If one parent underestimates his or her income, the paying parent’s amount will go up slightly, but because the combined come by income is lower, the child support amount will be lower.

Child-care and health insurance for the minor children are also included in the child support calculation. This is figured on the same percentage as the base child support amount.

If the minor child incurs medical expenses that are not covered by insurance, on a recurring basis, these expenses may also be calculated in the guidelines. If you, as the paying spouse pays for child-care, uncovered medical expenses or insurance out of your pocket, you also get a credit towards your child support, but these amounts must be figured into the guidelines as trusty payments made. These amounts offset the amount the paying parent pays.

If the parents agree to have rotating custody or 50/50 custody, the paying spouse will pay less child support, or none at all

Alimony and Its Effects on Child Support

Alimony also affects the guidelines. Alimony is commonly primitive as an equalizer (see http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/303694/alimony_need_or_greed.html), supposedly allowing both parties the same standard of living as during the marriage. It is considered income to the receiving spouse, and added to the receiving spouse’s net income and deducted from the paying spouse’s accept income on the child support guidelines. The receiving spouse also pays taxes on the alimony, since it is considered income. Alimony is deducted from the paying spouse’s gross income. The paying spouse has the right to claim alimony as a deduction on his / her income taxes at the end of the year.

Payment of Child Support

Child support may be paid through the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) or directly to the receiving spouse. It is recommended that child support be paid through SDU, as there will always be a record of the paying spouse’s payments.

Child befriend paid directly to the receiving spouse voluntarily (without an order from the Court) and not marked accordingly will be considered as a gift, should the receiving spouse choose to state that no child support had been paid. All voluntary support paid to the receiving spouse should be marked on the memo line with “child aid for child’s name for month, year.”

Child Support and the Minor Child

Divorces can be very emotionally taxing for both parties, and are even more so when children are involved. Many times, if the receiving spouse withholds visitation, the paying spouse withholds child support, thinking that they are hurting the receiving spouse. It is not the spouse that is being hurt, it is the minor children. Child support is customary for housing, clothing, food, school supplies and other important items for the minor children.

Some spouses would like to pay child support by paying for material items for the child, such as clothing, schooling, medical or school supplies. While this is a good idea, and you are sure the child receives all of the money, this is burdensome over time. It also causes friction between the spouses if the receipts do not add up exactly to the amount owed.

Remedies for Non Paying Spouses

If you opt not to pay your help, there are various remedies the Court may use against you. Generally, the receiving spouse can either retain an attorney and file a motion to compel support, or the receiving spouse may initiate a complaint with the Department of Revenue.

In the case of a motion to compel, you will have to go to Court and explain why you are not paying. The Court will make a decision, and if it orders you to pay, and you do not pay, the receiving spouse may file a motion for contempt. If you are found in contempt of Court for non-payment of support, you may be assessed sanctions. This includes a “purge amount,” sometimes in a lump sum payment, sometimes in payments with a “down-payment” up front. Sanctions may also include fines and / or the paying spouse to pay the receiving spouse’s attorneys’ fees. Non-payment of child support may also lead to jail time.

If you are unable to pay child support, you should immediately contact an attorney to petition the Court for a downward modification of support. Your petition must allege that there was an unforseen change in circumstance (such as being unable to work due to a disability, or other such permanent changes in income). If you cannot afford an attorney, you should at least hire a licensed or certified paralegal to help you with the paperwork.

File your paperwork as soon as possible, as it will take the system some time to process your petition. Your petition must be served upon the other party, the opposing party has twenty days to respond, and will most likely file a counter petition, to which you must answer. In some counties, the Court requires mandatory mediation. Mediation must be set, and the parties must attend before the Court will hear the case. The primary parent cannot withhold visitation for non-payment of support. The paying spouse should continue to pay attend until an order is entered, or risk sanctions.

Conclusion

Keep in mind that child support is for the children. Well-known care parents (the receiving spouse) must use funds allocated as child support for the minor child. Critical care parents may exhaust support for food, clothing, school supplies, school, medical (including dental and psychological), housing, and anything else the minor children use directly.

Primary care parents may not expend support funds for clothing for themselves, outings for themselves and other such pleasures.

Visitation may not be withheld because a spouse is not paying support. By the same token, support may not be withheld because the primary care parent withholds visitation.

Even if your succor payments are going through the State Disbursement Unit, document your child support payments if they are not being deducted from your paycheck. The SDU occasionally errs in its calculations, and documented support payments will make the correction less painful and a lot quicker.

Sometimes the stress and strain of everyday life get to the point where you just need to net away, even if it is only for a weekend. Connecticut, with its miles of coastline, its New England charm and its proximity to both Modern York and Boston, offers a variety of romantic vacation destinations.

The Litchfield Hills

In the northwestern part of the state, a reasonable drive from the high-intensity life of Manhattan, lies the picturesque rural area of Litchfield County. Many successful Original York business people have made this region their second home. The area is home to a growing number of upscale restaurants, art galleries, and antique shops – all of which rely on city-dwelling tourists intent on escaping for a countryside vacation. There are an abundance of quaint inns and bed and breakfast accommodations across Litchfield County. The Interlaken Inn in Lakeville, Connecticut has been a romantic getaway destination for over 100 years. Couples can escape there to enjoy the nearby Berkshire Mountains in every season, from summer hiking to fall foliage and winter sleigh rides.

Old Saybrook

If an oceanside stay is what you need to put you in a romantic mood, then the town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut might be the perfect vacation destination. Located at the mouth of the Connecticut River, this historic town offers quiet beaches, beautiful historic homes, and plenty of New England charm. The Saybrook Point Inn & Spa has been accommodating guests in search of a romantic getaway for over 130 years. Its waterfront restaurant and luxurious spa facilities offer the perfect opportunity to pamper yourself on a romantic weekend.

Old Lyme

Art lovers, and lovers of all kinds, will delight in a romantic vacation in this quintessential New England seaside town. Used Lyme, Connecticut is the situation of the world-renowned Florence Griswold Museum, and was the home of the American impressionist movement in the early 20^th century. Perhaps the best way to experience Old Lyme is with a stay at the Bee & Thistle Inn. This delicate little getaway offers just nine guest rooms, each of which features beautiful four-poster beds and antique furniture. The three itsy-bitsy dining rooms feature fine food served by candlelight, complete with romantic live music.

Silvermine

Fairfield County has a reputation as more of a functional, corporate residence to stay while traveling for business than it does as a romantic vacation destination. But nestled by the side of stream and a calm mill pond in the back woods of Norwalk is the Silvermine Tavern. The 200-year old building, with its wide-planked floor and guest rooms complete with canopied beds, also offers the area’s best Sunday brunch. Nearby is the eminent Silvermine Art Center, as well as the quaint cobbled street of the historic South Norwalk retail center.