## Facts

- D.L.E., a 12-year-old child, suffered brain damage at birth and experienced recurring grand mal epileptic seizures.
- Physicians testified that Dilantin could help control seizures but carried significant side effects and long-term risks.
- J.E., D.L.E.’s adoptive mother, belonged to a church that rejects medical care in favor of prayer and treatment by church elders.
- Based on those religious beliefs, J.E. refused to consent to Dilantin; D.L.E. shared the belief that spiritual treatment was sufficient.
- The county department of social services filed a petition alleging D.L.E. was dependent and neglected due to refusal of necessary medical care.
- Medical evidence did not establish that the seizures were then life-threatening, nor that they would become life-threatening to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

## Issues

1. Whether, given Colorado’s spiritual-treatment statute, a child may be adjudicated dependent or neglected solely because a parent refuses medical care for religious reasons and relies instead on spiritual treatment, where the condition is not shown to be life-threatening or likely to become so to a reasonable medical certainty.
2. Whether the dependency adjudication and order effectively compelling medical treatment impermissibly burdened religious freedom (raised but resolved on statutory grounds).

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the dependency adjudication and vacated the dispositional order transferring legal custody to the county and directing that medical treatment be arranged.
- The court held the spiritual-treatment statute qualified the general dependency/neglect definition and barred a finding based only on reliance on spiritual treatment.
- On this record, the refusal to approve Dilantin, without proof of life-threatening or imminent serious harm, was insufficient to support a dependency adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- A spiritual-treatment exemption stating that a child treated solely by prayer in good faith under the tenets of a recognized church “shall not, for that reason alone,” be considered neglected limits dependency/neglect findings otherwise premised on failure to provide medical care.
- The “notwithstanding any other provision” language signals legislative priority: the exemption constrains application of the general neglect/dependency definition.
- When the state seeks to intervene despite the spiritual-treatment exemption, the evidence must show more than disagreement over treatment choice; there must be a demonstrated, non-speculative threat of serious harm (including life-threatening or imminent danger) sufficient to justify state action.
- Courts may avoid constitutional rulings when statutory interpretation resolves the dispute.

## Conclusion

The court held that Colorado’s spiritual-treatment statute prevented adjudicating a child dependent or neglected solely because a parent, for religious reasons, declined medication and relied on prayer, where the evidence did not show the child’s condition posed a life-threatening or imminently serious risk requiring state intervention.


In re Interest of D.L.E., 614 P.2d 873 (Colo. 1980)