Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:39:45.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fetal Protection in Wisconsin's Revised Child Abuse Law: Right Goal, Wrong Remedy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Kenneth A. De Ville  and
Loretta M. Kopelman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the summer of 1998, the Wisconsin State legislature amended its child protection laws. Under new child abuse provisions, Wisconsin judges can confine pregnant women who abuse alcohol or drugs for the duration of their pregnancies. South Dakota enacted similar legislation almost simultaneously. The South Dakota statute requires mandatory drug and alcohol treatment for pregnant women who abuse those substances and classifies such activity as child abuse. In addition, the South Dakota legislation gives relatives the power to commit pregnant women involuntarily for two days; a court order can place the pregnant women in custody for up to nine months. These recent legislative “successes” follow scores of failed attempts by legislators in other states to establish fetal protection laws aimed at women who use and abuse drugs and alcohol during pregnancy.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , Winter 1999 , pp. 332 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Wis. Stat. §§ 48.01–.347 et seq. (1998); and “Child Abuse and Neglect and Child Abuse Services,” 1997 Wisconsin Laws 292 (A.B. 463) (enacted June 16, 1998).Google Scholar
See S.D. Codified Laws §§ 34–20A-63 to −70 (Michie 1998).Google Scholar
See Zeller, S., “Fetal Abuse Laws Gain Favor,” National Journal, July 25, 1998, at 1758.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, “Elevating the Legal Status of the Fetus: Pregnancy Prosecutions and Abortion Rights,” Reproductive Freedom News, 8, no. 6 (1999): 1–3.Google Scholar
See Steinbock, B., Life Before Birth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992) and Mathieu, D., Preventing Prenatal Harm: Should the State Intervene? (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996) are two of the most thoughtful and cogent overviews of this topic.Google Scholar
See, for example, Bell, G.L. and Lau, K., “Perinatal and Neonatal Issues of Substance Abuse,” Pediatric Clinics of North America, 42 (1995): 261–81; and Hulse, G.K., “Assessing the Relationship Between Maternal Opiate Use and Neonatal Mortality,” Addiction, 97 (1998): 1033–42.Google Scholar
See Plessinger, M.A. and Woods, J.R. Jr., “Cocaine in Pregnancy: Recent Data on Maternal and Fetal Risks,” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 25 (1998): 99–112; and Eyler, F.D., “Birth Outcome from a Prospective, Matched Study of Prenatal Crack/Cocaine Use: II. Interactive and Dose Effects on Neurobehavioral Assessment,” Pediatrics, 101 (1998): 237–41.Google Scholar
See De Ville, K.A. and Kopelman, L.M., “Moral and Social Issues Regarding Pregnant Women Who Use and Abuse Drugs,” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 25 (1998): 237–54.Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. § 48.01 (1998).Google Scholar
Id. §§ 48.01–.02.Google Scholar
Id. § 48.01(1)(a)(am).Google Scholar
Id. §§ 48.01–.02.Google Scholar
Id. § 905.04(2).Google Scholar
Id. § 905.04(4)(e)(3).Google Scholar
Id. § 48.981(1)–(3).Google Scholar
Id. §48.981(3)(b).Google Scholar
See id. §§48.193, .981(3).Google Scholar
Id. §§ 48.213, .235.Google Scholar
See id. § 48.299(4)(b).Google Scholar
See id. § 48.355.Google Scholar
Id. §§48.133, .19(8).Google Scholar
See id. §§ 48.205, .345, .347.Google Scholar
See id. § 48.207.Google Scholar
See id. §§ 48.345, .347(1)–(6), .355.Google Scholar
Id. §§ 48.345, .347(1)–(6), .355. See also De Ville, K.A. and Kopelman, L.M., “Wisconsin's 1998 Fetal Protection Law: An Immodest Proposal,” Medicine and Law, American Philosophical Association Newsletter, 98, no. 1 (1998): 99–102.Google Scholar
Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 561 N.W.2d 729 (Wis. 1997), rev'd Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 541 N.W.2d 482 (Wisc. Ct. App. 1995).Google Scholar
See, for example, In re Dittrick, 263 N.W.2d 37 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977); and In re Steven S., 126 Cal. App. 3d 23 (1981).Google Scholar
Carroll, L., Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass (New York: Peter Pauper Press, 1941): at 123, available at <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new?id=CarGlas&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0> (visited Dec. 16, 1999).Google Scholar
See Solomon, R.I., Note, “Future Fear: Prenatal Duties Imposed by Private Parties,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 17 (1991): 411–34.Google Scholar
See Graber, M.A., Rethinking Abortion: Equal Choice, the Constitution, and Reproductive Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
See Campbell, J.C., “Correlates of Battering During Pregnancy,” Research in Nursing & Health, 5 (1992): 219–26; Gazmararian, J.A., “Prevalence of Violence Against Pregnant Women,” JAMA, 275 (1996): 1915–20; Curry, M.A. Perrin, N., and Wall, E., “Effects of Abuse on Maternal Complications and Birth Weight in Adult and Adolescent Women,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, 92, no. 4, pt. 1 (1998): 530–34; Smikle, C.B., “Physical and Sexual Abuse in a Middle-Class Obstetric Population,” Southern Medical Journal, 89 (1996): 983–88; and McFarlane, J. Parker, B., and Soeken, B.K., “Abuse During Pregnancy: Associations with Maternal Health and Infant Birth Weight,” Nursing Research, 45, no. 1 (1996): 37–42.Google Scholar
See Solomon, supra note 30.Google Scholar
See Schroedel, J.R. and Pretz, P., “A Gender Analysis of Policy Formation: The Case of Fetal Abuse,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 19 (1994): 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 868 (1992).Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1991).Google Scholar
Nowak, J.E. and Rotunda, R.D., Constitutional Law (St. Paul: West Publishing, 5th ed., 1995): at 813–23.Google Scholar
See Shoop, J.G., “Is a Fetus a Person? Court Decisions Prompt Debate Over Fetal Rights,” Trial, 33, no. 6 (1997): 13–16; Paltrow, L.M., “Punishing Women for Their Behavior During Pregnancy: An Approach that Undermines the Health of Woman and Children,” in Wetherington, C.L. and Roman, A.B., eds., Drug Addiction Research and the Health of Women (Rockville: National Institutes of Health, 1998): 467–501; and Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, supra note 5, at 1–3.Google Scholar
See Krause, H.D., Family Law (St. Paul: West Publishing, 1986): at 246–47.Google Scholar
See Kopelman, L.M., “The Best-Interests Standard as Threshold, Ideal, and Standard of Reasonableness,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22 (1997): 271–89. It is important to note, however, that although the initial thrust of child protective services is aimed at the securing the well-being of the endangered child, the goal of the state child welfare organizations is usually to reunite the child with his/her family. We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).Google Scholar
In moral theory and in law, physical liberty is typically treated with more deference than other liberty rights because it is the liberty most closely associated solely with one's own interests. In contrast, parents' right to direct the upbringing of their child affects not only the parents, but also the child.Google Scholar
See Appelbaum, P.S. and Gutheil, T.G., Clinical Handbook of Psychiatry and the Law (Baltimore: Williams & Williams, 2nd ed., 1991): at 50–51.Google Scholar
See Mattson, S.N. and Riley, E.P., “A Review of the Neurobehavioral Deficits in Children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Prenatal Exposure to Alcohol,” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 22 (1998): 279–92.Google Scholar
See Coleman, F.S. and Kay, J., “Biology of Addiction,” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 25 (1998): 1–19; and Bell and Lau, supra note 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Mattson, and Riley, supra note 44, at 286.Google Scholar
See Mattson, S.N., “Heavy Prenatal Alcohol Exposure With or Without Physical Features of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Leads to IQ Deficits,” Journal of Pediatrics, 131 (1997): 718–21; and Abel, E.L. and Sokol, R.J., “Incidence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Economic Impact of FAS-Related Anomalies,” Drug and Alcohol Dependency, 19 (1987): 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, and Riley, supra note 44, at 285.Google Scholar
See Kaskutas, L., “Interpretations of Risk: The Use of Scientific Information in the Development of the Alcohol Warning Label Policy,” International Journal of Addictions, 30 (1995): 1519–48 (providing a useful summary of the strong but still somewhat equivocal scientific evidence regarding gestational consumption of alcohol).Google Scholar
See Bell, and Lau, supra note 7.Google Scholar
Koren, G., “Cocaine and the Human Fetus: The Concept of Teratophilia,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 15 (1993): 301–04, at 303. See also Neuspiel, D.R., “Behavior in Cocaine-Exposed Infants and Children: Association Versus Causality,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 36 (1994): 101–07. For excellent surveys of the scientific literature regarding the flawed and inconclusive nature of much of the gestational cocaine use literature, see Ellis, J.E., “In Utero Exposure to Cocaine: A Review,” Southern Medical Journal, 86 (1993): 725–31; and Lindesmith Center, Research Brief: Cocaine & Pregnancy (visited July 22, 1999) <http://www.lindesmith.org/library/subject.html>.Google Scholar
Neuspiel, D.R., “Cocaine and the Fetus: Mythology of Severe Risk,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 15 (1993): 305–06.Google Scholar
See Neuspiel, D.R., “Maternal Cocaine Use and Infant Behavior,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 13 (1991): 229–33; Bell, and Lau, supra note 7; Hulse, supra note 7; Plessinger, and Woods, supra note 8; and Eyler, supra note 8.Google Scholar
Woods, J.R. Jr., “Translating Basic Research on Drugs and Pregnancy into the Clinical Setting,” in Wetherington, and Roman, supra note 38, 187–95, at 190.Google Scholar
LaGasse, L.L. Seifer, R., and Lester, B.M., “Interpreting Research on Prenatal Substance Exposure in the Context of Multiple Confounding Factors,” Clinics in Perinatology, 26 (1999): 39–54, at 39.Google Scholar
See Wis. Stat. § 146.0255(2) (1998).Google Scholar
See Kaplan, J. and Waltz, J.R., Evidence: Cases and Materials (Mineola: Foundation Press, 6th ed., 1987): 81–96.Google Scholar
See Handwerker, L., “Medical Risk: Implicating Poor Pregnant Women,” Social Science Medicine, 8 (1994): 665–75.Google Scholar
See Wis. Stat. §§ 940.06–.25 et seq.Google Scholar
See Rosenbaum, M. and Irwin, K., “Pregnancy, Drugs, and Harm Reduction,” in Wetherington, and Roman, supra note 38, at 309–18.Google Scholar
See Howell, E.M. Heiser, N., and Harrington, M., “A Review of Recent Findings on Substance Abuse Treatment for Pregnant Women,” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 16 (1999): 195–219.Google Scholar
See Cole, A.M., “Legal Interventions During Pregnancy: Court-Ordered Treatment and Legal Penalties for Potentially Harmful Behavior by Pregnant Women,” JAMA, 264 (1990): 2663–70.Google Scholar
See De Ville, and Kopelman, supra note 9; and Solomon, supra note 30.Google Scholar
See Roberts, D.E., “Punishing Drug Addicts Who Have Babies: Women of Color, Equality, and the Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, 104 (1991): 1419–82; Chasnoff, I.J. Landress, H.J., and Barret, M.E., “The Prevalence of Illicit-Drug or Alcohol Use During Pregnancy and Discrepancies in Mandatory Reporting in Pinellas County, Florida,” N. Engl. J. Med., 322 (1990): 1202–06; Neuspiel, D.R., “Racism and Perinatal Addiction,” Ethnicity & Disease, 6, nos. 1–2 (1996): 47–55; and Jos, P.H. Marshall, M.F., and Perlmutter, M., “The Charleston Policy on Cocaine Use During Pregnancy, A Cautionary Tale,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 23 (1995): 120–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Humphries, D., “Crack Mothers at 6,” Violence Against Women, 6, no. 1 (1998): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilton, J.M., “Compelled Hospitalization and Treatment During Pregnancy: Mental Health Statutes as Models for Legislation to Protect Children from Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure,” Family Law Quarterly, 25 (1991): 149–70, at 150.Google Scholar
See Nelson, L.J. and Marshall, M.F., Ethical and Legal Analyses of Three Coercive Policies Aimed at Substance Abuse By Pregnant Women (Princeton: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, Grant 030790, 1997): at 95–111.Google Scholar
See Garcia, S.A. and Keilitz, I., “Involuntary Civil Commitment of Drug-Dependent Persons with Special Reference to Pregnant Women,” MPDLR, 15 (1991): 418–37.Google Scholar
Wilton, supra note 66, at 166.Google Scholar
The intentionality requirement, of course, would allow pregnant women to avoid involuntary commitment for potentially injurious substance abuse throughout the first two trimesters of their pregnancies by merely informing the court that they did not intend to carry the fetus to term. At the same time, however, if the pregnancy has progressed past the point of a legal abortion, then the issue of whether the woman “intends” to carry the fetus to term becomes irrelevant. She would be legally precluded from deciding otherwise.Google Scholar
Black, H.C., Black's Law Dictionary (St. Paul: West Publishing, 5th ed., 1979): at 227.Google Scholar