• Home
  • News
  • Mom Disappears with Son After Court Orders Chemo for the Boy

Health Law

Mom Disappears with Son After Court Orders Chemo for the Boy

Posted May 20, 2009 6:55 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A judge who ordered a 13-year-old teen to receive chemotherapy has now issued an arrest warrant for the mother after she and the boy disappeared.

Colleen Hauser had resisted treatment for her son, Daniel, because she is a member of Nemenhah, a religious group that favors natural healing methods used by some American Indians, the Associated Press reports.

Daniel has Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer considered highly treatable with chemotherapy and radiation. Judge John Rodenberg of Brown County held Hauser in contempt of court and issued the arrest warrant yesterday when she failed to show up for a court hearing with her son, the Pioneer Press reports.

A cout-ordered doctor’s appointment on Monday showed Daniel's tumor had grown. The boy's father, Anthony, told the judge he last saw his wife Monday evening when she told him she was going to leave for a time and "that's all you need to know."

Comments

1.

J.D.
May 20, 2009 8:39 AM CST

It’s odd that liberals argue the state should step in to protect the child, but simultaneously believe it’s a woman’s “right to choose” if she wants to kill the child while he’s still in the womb.

Isn’t this decision to avoid chemo—a religious decision, I might add… i.e., protected by the Constitution—the perfect example of pro-choice?

Flag this comment

2.

Yeah Right
May 20, 2009 4:06 PM CST

By JD’s logic, a religious decision is protected by the Constitution: therefore,

1) force minors/girls to marry adults for religious reason is also protected (see fundamental LDS members in northern Arizona and southern Utah)

2) waging holy war against other religions (wether against Christian or against Mulsim) based on your own religion is also protected (I say freedom to all detainees if the detainee are waging a holy war then under this approach)...

Funny how religious is not “JUST” in some cases…

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
May 20, 2009 7:06 PM CST

“An rud nach leigheasann im ná uisce beatha níl aon leigheas air.”

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
May 21, 2009 9:16 AM CST

Since these people are seeking the health care of that of Native Americans, I find it interesting that liberals are willing to align tribal customs with terrorism.

I also wonder why libs are so unwilling to even comment about the problems associated with Sharia law invading Western law. I will wait for #2 (who clearly has a problem with Mormon culture) to decry any effort of U.S. courts to allow Muslim traditions to take root here. I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time…

Flag this comment

5.

Andy the lawyer
May 21, 2009 3:20 PM CST

JD:  US Constitional jurisprudence draws a line that may have escaped you while sleeping in Con Law 101—kids are people.  Babies are people.  Fetuses aren’t.  If you can’t tell the difference, then you shouldn’t be allowed to order breakfast in a restaurant since you probably can’t tell an egg from a chicken.

And his chemotherapy point would make sense if the woman was deciding that she, herself, as the patient, didn’t want it.  But parents don’t get to make that decision for kids.  If the kid lives and the cancer recurs after he turns 18, he can make that decision for himself.  Meanwhile, child endangerment is child endangerment, regardless of motive.

Flag this comment

6.

T.R.
May 26, 2009 8:31 AM CST

Please, don’t feed the trolls.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.