3

Through public internet group chats, I was able to meet a teenage girl that suffers from a medical condition. According to her, she lives in the US, but in a neglectful household where her parents pay little attention to her.

Doctors say one of her limbs will have to be amputated eventually, but not in the near future, meaning that she will probably still have around ten years to pay for the surgery after becoming an adult.

She seems to be already assuming that nor she nor her parents will pay for the surgery, so that she will simply lose her limb. I wonder however what her options are.

My concerns are the following: what if, as an adult, she needs the surgery but is incapable of getting it due to lack of money?

Are there any laws that will grant her the right to a free surgery since she is underage?

Are her parents spared from paying for the surgery because she will have the option to pay for it herself one she is an adult?

I would really appreciate any help.

Sam
  • 133
  • 6

1 Answers1

6

Parents have a legal obligation to care for their minor children: it is illegal to harm a child through action or inaction. State law and associated welfare programs are complex: you can start here. If surgery is medically necessary, her insurance should cover it. If her parent do not have medical insurance, they still have the obligation of care; though various governmental programs may alleviate the problem, such as the state medical assistance program. The parents may therefore be in violation of the law, and anyone may report this to DSHS (specifically through Child Protective Services). This obligation terminates when the child turns 18 (assuming that someone does not petition for adult guardianship).

Legislation is not crystal clear as far as what constitutes "injury of a child ...under circumstances which cause harm to the child's health". CPS has no authority to compel parents to pay for a medical treatment, but they can go to the courts on behalf of the child. At that point, it's hard to say what the court would order. For example, if the parents are capable of providing medical insurance and just willfully chose to not cover their child, the court could order them to get insurance. It is virtually guaranteed that the courts would not order the immediate amputation of the child's feet, and there would be no legal basis for ordering the parents to pay for the procedure in a decade, after the child is an adult. However, if you are suggesting that there is an immediate treatment (which the parents have opted to not provide, hence the prospects of later amputation), then it is reasonably likely that the courts would order the parents to provide for the treatment (if it would be possible for them; otherwise, the state may intervene and provide for the treatment).

user6726
  • 217,973
  • 11
  • 354
  • 589