The Decision: This decision involves the tragic case of a child, born June 1, 2000 who was severely shaken and dropped while in foster care in mid-August 2000. The baby suffered severe brain injuries as a result of shaken baby impact syndrome. Under the new OCA statute, an Attorney Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) was appointed to represent the best interests of the infant. On September 6, 2000, the GAL filed a motion to de-escalate medical intervention and institute a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Order for the baby. The Court held a hearing on the motion and heard evidence from numerous physicians concerning the baby's condition as well as testimony from the GAL. The Court wrestled with many procedural and emotional issues, many of which were issues of first impression to the Court. Tania Culley, Esq., filed an amicus brief laying out the procedural and jurisdictional case law from around the country which has addressed these most sensitive issues.

     The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction over Nicholas by virtue of his dependent and neglected status. The Court also found that it had the authority to enter a DNR order on behalf of him. The Court acknowledged a parents' right to make decisions on behalf of their child , but noted that it is well established that the State can intervene where a child's health or safety are jeopardized. The Court felt obligated to be available to protect the rights of Nicholas. The Court next concluded that it must utilize the "best interests" standard in making its determination rather then substituted judgment since Nicholas is an infant who cannot express his wishes. Finally, the Court concluded by clear and convincing evidence that it was in Nicholas' best interests to direct the hospital to forego the use of heroic medical efforts to resuscitate him, that the ventilator should be removed, and that Nicholas should receive comfort measures only. The Court based its determination on the uncontroverted medical evidence that Nicholas would never be able to perform even the most basic functions of life. The Court also gave significant weight to the unanimous view of the GAL, the doctors and parents that this is in the best interests of Nicholas.

     From the Child's Perspective: As difficult as this decision was, the Court rose to its obligation, as it must when a child is in the custody of the State. This was a tragic, heartbreaking case, but the Court thoughtfully and rationally applied the law, and did what was best for Nicholas. We hope that the precedent established by this case never needs to be utilized, but are grateful that Delaware has such a well-reasoned decision as precedent.

Back to Case Law