In re Hofbauer
In re Hofbauer, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979)
Facts
•
The parents had serious and justifiable concerns about the deleterious effects of radiation treatments and chemotherapy.
•
Family Court found that Joseph was not a neglected child, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
•
Dr. Arthur Cohn recommended radiation and chemotherapy.
•
Joseph was temporarily removed from his parents' custody.
•
The parents consulted numerous qualified doctors.
•
Conflicting medical opinions existed regarding the effectiveness of the treatment Joseph was receiving.
•
Conventional treatments would be administered to the child if his condition so warrants.
•
There was medical proof that the nutritional treatment being administered to Joseph was controlling his condition and that such treatment is not as toxic as is the conventional treatment.
•
Joseph's parents rejected this advice and chose nutritional or metabolic therapy, including laetrile, at Fairfield Medical Clinic in Jamaica.
•
In October 1977, Joseph Hofbauer, a seven-year-old, was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease.
•
Joseph was later returned to his parents' custody under the care of Dr. Michael Schachter, a proponent of metabolic therapy.
•
A neglect proceeding was commenced by the Saratoga County Commissioner of Social Services.
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Key Holdings
•
Parents who choose a course of medical treatment recommended by a duly licensed physician, even if not widely embraced by the medical community, do not necessarily constitute child neglect under Section 1012 of the Family Court Act, provided they exercise a minimum degree of care in supplying the child with adequate medical care.
Citations
In re Hofbauer, 393 N.E.2d 1009, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2204 (1979)
Legal Reasoning
The court reasoned that the definition of 'adequate medical care' must be judged on a case-by-case basis. While parents have a duty to provide adequate medical care, they also have a fundamental right to rear their child. Great deference must be accorded to a parent's choice of medical treatment and physician, especially when the physician is duly licensed. The court should not substitute its judgment for the parents' decision, but rather determine whether the parents have provided an acceptable course of medical treatment recommended by their physician and not totally rejected by all responsible medical authority. The court found that the parents in this case had met this standard.
Outcome
The order of the Appellate Division affirming the Family Court's decision that Joseph was not a neglected child was affirmed.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved