## Facts

- Jason Rogers and Leeann Rogers were the natural parents of D.R., an infant diagnosed with epilepsy and affected by frequent seizures and developmental delay.
- Because of the seizures, D.R. was underdeveloped and had significant medical needs.
- At the urging of paternal grandparents and after involvement by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS), the parents initially obtained medical evaluation and physical therapy for D.R., which appeared to help.
- During a particularly severe seizure (during a therapy session), D.R. seized for about ten minutes and stopped breathing for approximately sixty seconds.
- After that episode, the parents refused further medical evaluation and treatment for D.R. and discontinued therapy.
- The parents’ refusal was based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They were members of the Church of Truth, a recognized church that teaches rejection of medical treatment in favor of spiritual healing.
- DHS sought and obtained temporary emergency custody of D.R. and placed her with her paternal grandparents, who agreed to cooperate with medical care.
- A neurologist diagnosed D.R. with a severe seizure disorder and prescribed an oral anticonvulsant described as very effective with a low incidence of side effects; testimony indicated D.R.’s condition was severe and potentially life-threatening without medication.
- The medical diagnosis and the medication’s effectiveness were not contested.
- The parents testified they understood the seriousness of D.R.’s condition but stated they would discontinue the medication and refuse medical care if D.R. were returned to their custody.
- DHS filed a petition to adjudicate D.R. a deprived child based on medical neglect. After hearing evidence, the trial court adjudicated D.R. deprived and continued custody with DHS.
- The parents appealed, arguing the finding was improperly based on their religious beliefs.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported adjudicating D.R. a deprived child based on medical neglect where the parents refused medically indicated treatment for a potentially life-threatening seizure disorder.
2. Whether the deprived-child adjudication and resulting state intervention violated the parents’ constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and to direct the upbringing and medical care of their child.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s adjudication that D.R. was a deprived child.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding of medical neglect because D.R. faced a serious, potentially life-threatening condition, effective treatment was available, and the parents refused that treatment and said they would stop it in the future.
- The court rejected the parents’ constitutional challenge, concluding the State may act to protect a child’s health and life even when parents’ refusal of care is religiously motivated.
- The court characterized the case as state action aimed at preventing harm to the child (withholding necessary medical care), not as punishment of religious belief or church membership.

## Legal Principles

- A child may be adjudicated deprived when parents fail or refuse to provide necessary medical care and the omission places the child at serious risk of harm.
- Parents have substantial rights to raise their children and make medical decisions, but those rights are limited when a child’s life or health is endangered.
- Free exercise of religion protects belief, but it does not prevent the State from restricting religiously motivated conduct that threatens a child’s safety.
- In a deprived-child proceeding, the court may rely on objective medical evidence and parents’ stated intent to continue withholding necessary treatment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the deprived-child adjudication because D.R. had a severe seizure disorder that was potentially life-threatening without treatment, effective low-risk medication was available, and the parents—though sincere in their religious beliefs—refused medical care and stated they would discontinue the medication if D.R. returned home; the State’s interest in protecting the child’s health and life justified intervention.


In the Matter of D.R., 20 P.3d 166 (2001)