Background
Plaintiffs, a mother and her minor daughter, appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Dr. Krzystztof Mlak. The case arose from the inpatient psychiatric acute care treatment of the minor daughter after the Arizona Department of Child Safety temporarily removed her from her home. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Mlak violated their due process rights by administering the anti-psychotic drug Haldol without their consent.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court explained that while parents retain a liberty interest in the care of their children, that interest must yield to countervailing interests when a child is in state custody. The court noted that the Department of Child Safety obtained a juvenile court order authorizing inpatient psychiatric acute care services, which included medication stabilization under Arizona law. The court found that the doctor’s administration of Haldol was consistent with the court order and that the mother had received notice of the order. Because the doctor acted pursuant to a court order, he was not required to obtain separate consent from the mother.
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies that medical providers acting under a valid juvenile court order for psychiatric care do not need to obtain separate parental consent for medication, even if the parents object. It reinforces the authority of juvenile court orders to authorize necessary medical treatment for minors in state custody.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download