Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Johnson affirms the district court's finding that the five-year-old is in need of protection or services because of his parents' refusal to continue his chemotherapy treatment, along with the court's orders requiring that treatment and placing the child with his grandmother. Regardless of whether the child's leukemia was "active" at time of trial, the child had a cancerous condition that required treatment, and the county provided sufficient grounds for its contention that chemotherapy was "necessary" or "required" care. The district court's orders requiring chemotherapy also do not violate the parents' constitutional rights to care, custody and control of the child, since the best interests of the child are served by "a treatment plan that is likely to save his life rather than an unspecified alternative plan that is likely to result in his death." Placing the child with the grandmother, with whom the parents are also allowed to reside, subject to conditions, is also justified by a statute requiring that children in temporary protective custody be placed "in the least restrictive setting," and "in closest proximity to the child's family as possible." Affirmed.