## Facts

- A county department of social services filed a Family Court Act article 10 neglect petition alleging unsanitary home conditions, inadequate supervision, and educational and medical neglect involving four children.
- The children were removed on an emergency basis and placed in foster care; after a Family Court Act § 1028 hearing, the court denied the mother’s request for their return.
- During the pending neglect proceeding, the attorney for the children advised the court that the two oldest children (ages 13 and 15) wanted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, but the mother refused consent.
- The attorney for the children, the county agency, and the father of the two older children supported vaccination; the mother opposed it.
- Without holding a separate evidentiary hearing, Family Court relied on written submissions, found the two older children sufficiently informed and capable of consent, and ordered they may be vaccinated if they continued to consent.
- The mother appealed the vaccination authorization order.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Court, in a pending article 10 neglect proceeding where children have been removed to foster care, may authorize COVID-19 vaccination for two minor children consistent with their wishes over the mother’s objection.
2. Whether Family Court could determine the children’s capacity and best interests based on written submissions, without conducting a new evidentiary hearing.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order.
- The court held that, given the pending neglect proceeding and foster-care placement, Family Court acted within its authority in permitting vaccination in accordance with the adolescents’ wishes over the mother’s objection.
- The court upheld Family Court’s determinations that the children were sufficiently mature and informed to consent and that vaccination served their best interests.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in resolving the request on written submissions without a separate evidentiary hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a fundamental interest in directing their children’s upbringing and medical care, but that interest is not absolute when the state must protect a child’s welfare.
- In an article 10 proceeding involving removal and ongoing court oversight, Family Court may exercise parens patriae authority to authorize necessary medical care in the child’s best interests despite a parent’s objection.
- An adolescent’s expressed medical preference may be given substantial weight when the child demonstrates sufficient maturity and understanding of the risks and benefits.
- Family Court may decide a discrete medical-authorization request without a new evidentiary hearing when the existing record and submissions are adequate and the court has ongoing familiarity with the family from the neglect proceeding.

## Conclusion

The appellate court sustained Family Court’s authorization of COVID-19 vaccination for two foster-care adolescents over their mother’s objection, concluding that the children’s capacity and best interests supported the order and that the court could decide the issue on written submissions in the context of the ongoing neglect case.


In re Athena Y., 201 A.D.3d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021)