Medical liberty prevails over DCS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Allen County, Indiana Trial Court Judge Upholds Parental Rights, Denies DCS Motion to Forcibly Vaccinate Children

Fort Wayne, IN -- In a major victory for Medical Liberty, an Indiana court has denied the Department of Child Services’ (DCS) Motion to override the religious exemption and force vaccinate multiple children in foster placement.

The court ruled that the State of Indiana (DCS) failed to demonstrate its burden to show vaccination of the children is necessary.

Hoosiers for Medical Liberty (H4ML) Founder, Ashley Grogg, was able to support attorneys as they prepared the case. Her expert knowledge of vaccination law in Indiana provided the upper hand needed for cases like this.

All too often, these cases fail, and children are vaccinated against the parents' sincerely held religious beliefs. When Hoosiers, including attorneys, don’t know or understand vaccination law, it is easy for the Court systems to trample medical liberty. This is a huge step to ending that in foster care,” said Grogg.

This is not the first time that Grogg has fought to end vaccine mandates in foster care. During the 2023 legislative session, H4ML was successful in ensuring that Hoosiers seeking to foster or adopt would not be denied based on vaccination status. This legislation was a landmark. It didn’t create exemptions; it made the refusal of a license based on vaccination status illegal.

For this reason, Lindsay Franklin of Franklin Law knew Ashley would be an ally.  Historically, Franklin has had a front row seat watching as medical liberty is disregarded by the court system with little recourse. The loss of parental decision-making and violation of religious freedoms made it tough to sit on the sidelines. Franklin took on the challenging case, knowing she was up against a wall.

I knew the direction this case was going, so I reached out to Ashley right away,”  Franklin said as she recalled her conversation with Grogg.  “Ashley immediately helped me outline areas of the law that protect medical liberty in Indiana and put me in touch with a constitutional law attorney to perfect our argument, citing federal and state law. I practice family law, and this area of constitutional law does not come up, so I welcomed help. With Ashley’s support, I felt like my client and her children had a chance.”

The official motion, in which DCS sought to override the mother’s religious objection to vaccination, was filed in June. DCS cited agency policy, recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the inability of the children to participate in school or activities as the cause. They further argued that a foster parent’s compromised immune system and prior local measles cases justified compulsory vaccination.

Some of these assertions were easy to cross off the list; others weren’t.

First of all, the mother asserted her right to religious exemption for school and daycare as she had done in the past via  IC  § 20-34-3-2 and IC  § 12-17.2-3.5-11.1. Filing an exemption allowed the children to attend school and daycare without issue.

DCS policy is to provide vaccinations for all children.  However, it is not well known that the policy is based on state law, and the code also specifically exempts children whose parents object based on religion. Grogg recalled this from previous research for H4ML and provided Franklin with the citation.

IC § 31-27-9-2  Subsection (g): A child may be exempted from immunizations against routine childhood diseases upon the good faith religious belief statement of the parent or guardian.

Still concerned about the potential for the courts to override multiple religious exemption statutes, Grogg reached out to constitutional attorney Michelle Harter. In a private conversation, they discussed the scenario and the low likelihood of preventing forced vaccination.

Both Harter and Grogg knew they had one more option; however, they had little faith that it would help, but they were determined to stop at nothing to protect the religious freedoms of this family.

That is, as of July 1, 2025, a new statute regarding parental rights was passed, IC § 31-42-1-2. Both women were exceptionally outspoken about their concerns about the new law due to the risk associated with allowing a violation of parental rights for a “compelling governmental interest.” The government tends to believe that its interests are compelling.

Nevertheless, despite their concerns, Harter and Grogg have both been quoted as stating they would rather admit to being wrong than fail to use a potential tool to help the family. They discussed the risks of the statute with Franklin and ensured that the client was also aware that the statute may not be helpful in the case; however, raising the statute would help provide additional grounds for appeal.

So, they advanced utilizing the state and federal constitutions, existing state statutes for religious exemption, and the new parental rights statute.

The court date came, and Grogg accompanied Franklin and her client to court as her consultant.

Being in the courtroom, I was able to see firsthand that DCS was failing to make its case. How could they? There are multiple statutes providing religious exemptions,” Grogg said. Grogg further recalled, “I had been told that the judge previously said, ‘this comes down to whether or not there is a compelling government interest.’ When the judge questioned the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), she admitted part of the reason she felt the kids should be vaccinated was due to her own personal convictions. The client was questioned as to what her religious beliefs were. It was at this point that I was able to advise Franklin that there was a case precedent against religious tests. I was really impressed with how well Franklin handled the situation because she does not deal with this area of law in her family law practice.”

There was no ruling on the day of the hearing, and Franklin expected it to take a full 90 days. But after 6.5 weeks, the court issued its order, citing a failure on the part of DCS to meet its burden.

Victory in favor of the family and medical liberty!

In the order, the court acknowledged the religious exemptions for school and daycare, negating DCS’s claim that the children could not participate. Interestingly, the DCS statute allowing for religious exemption was NOT acknowledged in the ruling. This was odd to Harter, Franklin, and Grogg, and something to make note of for future cases.

In the order, the Court addressed the religious test conducted during the hearing, with significant focus on the courts' avoidance of questioning the beliefs. Which will be important in future DCS cases, as well as in the instance of defending medical liberty in other areas:

“Courts are cautioned against engaging a theological examination of an individual's religious belief. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707(1981) (holding that "courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is "struggling" with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ). While the Court questions the credibility of the objection given that one of the children is vaccinated, the Court does not undertake to "dissect" Mother's beliefs.”

Finally, the order addressed the health concerns of the placement, and the ruling confirmed Franklin’s assertion that moving the placement of one of the five children would be less restrictive than vaccination.
This case is a victory for this family. However, it is also a cautionary tale. We should not be overzealous in our celebration that we do not recognize the risks of overconfidence.

Looking at future cases, we should be cautiously optimistic. DCS set the bar pretty low in making their case. If they had put more effort into their reasoning behind why the children should have been vaccinated, the court may have ruled in favor of DCS,” says Grogg.

I agree, the real problem is that this particular case does not squarely address the threshold for DCS meeting the burden of what is a ‘compelling government’ interest.” Added Harter, “We are going to have to watch these cases carefully.”

Franklin agreed on both accounts, remarking that she was elated that her client’s religious and medical liberties were upheld.

The three of us will continue to analyze the case, and Grogg has the family’s permission to use this as a case study, providing a free resource through H4ML that others can use. I would not hesitate to reach out and get additional support if needed,” concluded Franklin.

Before the interview ended, Harter had a last bit of encouragement for families facing similar issues, “Even if you have an attorney that will support you, reach out to H4ML for additional resources. This is a great start, but we cannot take this win for granted.”

H4ML is working with its legal team to develop a resource guide to help other families facing similar DCS overreach.

For media inquiries or interview requests:
Hoosiers for Medical Liberty
📞 (260) 267-0098
✉️ [email protected]
🌐 www.h4ml.org
 
If you appreciate stories like this and the continued effort by H4ML to make solutions available to ALL Hoosiers, please consider donating. Hoosiers for Medical Liberty proudly educates, empowers, and mobilizes Hoosiers in the pursuit of Medical Liberty, but we can’t do it without generous donors like you.
Donate today to support Medical Liberty.