Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Bars Mom From Smoking Around Child
NY Law Journal ^ | 3/25/02 | By John Caher

Posted on 03/25/2002 5:30:15 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines

In an apparent case of first impression, a judge in Utica has prohibited a mother from smoking in the presence of her 13-year-old son.

What makes Supreme Court Justice Robert F. Julian's order in a visitation matter extraordinary is that he banned the parent from smoking, even though the youth is neither allergic to cigarette smoke nor afflicted with a disease such as asthma that could be exacerbated by exposure.

Judge Julian cited scientific evidence on the generally adverse health effect of second-hand smoke, and found that continued exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is not in the best long-term interests of the child.

Justice Julian said courts in New York and several other states have banned parental smoking when it related directly to a current and ongoing malady suffered by an offspring. However, the judge said he was unable to find any decision ordering parents to maintain a smoke-free environment absent an underlying diagnosis of asthma, allergy or another disorder.

Johnita M.D. v. David D.D., D-37432, arose when the child, Nicholas D., complained of maternal smoking during court-ordered visitations. The boy lives with his father and grandparents, who do not smoke, and has overnight visitations with his mother.

In August, Nicholas and his law guardian approached Judge Julian, who held an in-camera proceeding to consider the youth's concerns. The boy complained that his mother smokes in her bathroom during all of his visitations and that the apartment reeks of smoke. He also said the mother smokes in the car.

The mother contended that her indoor smoking occurred primarily during the winter, and suggested that the father was the impetus behind the motion. She also argued that the smoking issue is simply a subterfuge to avoid visitation.

Justice Julian, however, said the motive behind the motion is irrelevant since the behavior at issue -- smoking -- is demonstrably dangerous to the child.

"Even though Nicholas does not presently have asthma, exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke apparently significantly increases his risks of developing, either as a child or as an adult, asthma, coronary artery disease, lung cancer, and certain chronic respiratory disorder[s], to name the most significant conditions," Justice Julian wrote.

The court took judicial notice of scientific literature on the health impact of second-hand smoke and gave the parties 30 days to object, after which the order is binding. Under that order, both parents are barred from smoking or allowing others to smoke in their homes or automobiles when Nicholas is present.

There have been several New York decisions in recent years where courts have prohibited parental smoking in a household occupied by a child with a diagnosed illness. Courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Tennessee and North Dakota have ruled similarly. But Justice Julian went a step further in assuming a parens patriae role. He noted that courts have not been reluctant to interfere with parental authority when the risk to a child is great, as he found it is here.

"With regard to health care, the state will intervene even to the extent of overriding the religious convictions of the parents," Justice Julian said. "No element of American liberty is more highly cherished or jealously guarded than religious freedom, yet in its role as parens patriae, and for the protection of the health and welfare of children, the state may and will contravene a family's religious beliefs and obligations," Justice Julian wrote. "The [mother's] interest in unhampered cigarette smoking cannot be said to be greater than the religious interests advanced by others wishing for parental judgment to overcome a child's best interests."

Custody Benefits Seen

The law guardian, William L. Koslosky of Koslosky & Koslosky in Utica, said the youth is "elated" with the decision.

"The boy had a really difficult time visiting with the mom for many different reasons, but one of the prime reasons was the smoking," Mr. Koslosky said. "I think the judge was rather impressed that there was no ulterior motive . . . and that this was a very genuine concern that the kid had regarding smoking, and not only for his well being, but also for his mother."

Mr. Koslosky said the precedent, if it holds, will have a positive impact.

"As far as custody cases, I think it is going to be very good, especially for children who are younger," he said.

Joan T. Shkane of Shkane & Shaheen in New Hartford, Oneida County, represents the mother. She was not immediately available for comment.

The attorney for the father, Kurt D. Parry of Rome, Oneida County, said the order "takes children out of a harmful situation and acknowledges that harm could be brought to them as a result of smoking. I think clearly the court is looking to do what is in the best interests of the child. Here, we were dealing with a mature 13-year-old individual who was able to recognize the risk."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: itsforthechildren; parentalrights; smoking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 03/25/2002 5:30:16 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Ummmmmm...Gabz....NicoNaziPing!
2 posted on 03/25/2002 5:36:05 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
I would calmly tell all in this case to kiss my ass. If that wuss of a kid was my boy, I would tell him to come visit me when you grow a set of balls.
3 posted on 03/25/2002 5:41:41 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
I'd send him down to Texas Tech to play for Bobby Knight!
4 posted on 03/25/2002 5:44:42 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
[the judge] noted that courts have not been reluctant to interfere with parental authority when the risk to a child is great, as he found it is here.

Doesn't take them very much anymore to find 'great risk', does it?

Cordially,

5 posted on 03/25/2002 5:46:11 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; just another joe; max Mcgarrity
The inexorable death march has begun. The government is finally in the stages of rounding up inhabitants for the camps. What absolute lunacy! I hope this mother fights back.
6 posted on 03/25/2002 5:46:44 AM PST by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Puffa-puffa-bump! BTW, cool moniker.
7 posted on 03/25/2002 5:48:05 AM PST by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Boortz just teased this story going to commercial.
8 posted on 03/25/2002 5:49:52 AM PST by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
Nothing would prevent social services from removing kids from the homes of married parents under this judge's logic.
9 posted on 03/25/2002 5:50:16 AM PST by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
They already have done so. The slope is just getting more slippery and steeper.
10 posted on 03/25/2002 5:51:51 AM PST by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
And coming from a broken home is great for the kid, right?
11 posted on 03/25/2002 5:53:21 AM PST by rogercolleridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
And here is his reasoning.

"No element of American liberty is more highly cherished or jealously guarded than religious freedom, yet in its role as parens patriae, and for the protection of the health and welfare of children, the state may and will contravene a family's religious beliefs and obligations," Justice Julian wrote. "The [mother's] interest in unhampered cigarette smoking cannot be said to be greater than the religious interests advanced by others wishing for parental judgment to overcome a child's best interests."

By this standard, the courts have a club with which they can do just about anything they want.

12 posted on 03/25/2002 5:53:58 AM PST by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
But she can take the child to have an abortion.
13 posted on 03/25/2002 5:56:29 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Take the child for an abortion? When did males become able to get pregnant?
14 posted on 03/25/2002 6:05:17 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; LostThread
I wonder how long before we'll see the courts mandating that parents maintain an adequate supply of Little Debbie snack cakes on hand . . .
15 posted on 03/25/2002 6:11:31 AM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Only in Democrap controlled Amerika:(
16 posted on 03/25/2002 6:19:52 AM PST by jungleboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BraveMan
Little Debbie!?! Are you insane, man?

Those things are loaded with sugar which can lead to diabetes and obesity. You know full well that obesity is a greater burden on the health care industry than smoking. How can you encourage your child to be fat? This is cause for great concern.

(sarcasm off)

17 posted on 03/25/2002 6:55:18 AM PST by Bigoleelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
This can't be America.
18 posted on 03/25/2002 6:57:46 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I think I'd tell the young man to stay with his father. Further "visitation" is entirely unnecessary.
19 posted on 03/25/2002 7:02:32 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
"The mother contended that her indoor smoking occurred primarily during the winter, and suggested that the father was the impetus behind the motion."

That's what I thought when I first started reading the story.

20 posted on 03/25/2002 7:03:09 AM PST by Freemyland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson