Turner, J.,
¶1
concurring. This concurrence is to make plain that we are not opposed to vaccination and do not criticize the board of education for preventing the attendance in school of any unvaccinated child. The way is pointed out in the majority opinion for the correction of this situation.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton county.
In an affidavit dated April 25, 1949, it was charged that defendant did unlawfully, purposely, knowingly and willfully by his acts did cause, encourage and contribute to the neglect of his son Edward, aged 7,
who was then and there a neglected child in this, to wit: That the said [defendant] * * * did neglect and refuse to provide said minor with a proper and necessary education since on or about March 17, 1949.
At the trial, the state offered evidence tending to prove that, shortly after defendant's minor son began attending a particular public school, he was examined by the school physician; that the school physician found no evidence that defendant's son had been vaccinated; that the principal then sent the defendant a letter advising him that, according to state law and city ordinance and board of health regulations, his son will need to show evidence of vaccination, and that his son should not return to school until this is done; that defendant's son had attended school regularly until this letter was sent to defendant; and that the board of education had previously adopted the following regulation:
No person shall be admitted as a pupil in any day school who does not produce satisfactory evidence of immunization against smallpox.
Defendant testified that, after receiving the foregoing letter, he twice endeavored to send his son to school but that the son was sent home each time. This testimony was not controverted. The evidence showed further that, although, after his son had been excluded from school, defendant had been trying to educate him according to defendant's own standards and ability, he was not providing him with any other education and he had no method or system of educating his son that was approved by the school board.
The Juvenile Court found the defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to jail for a term of 3 months. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Juvenile Court.
The case is before this court on appeal, a motion to certify having been allowed. Source: CourtListener
Court Parallel citations 93 N.E.2d 286 42 OhioOp. 133 