A Massachusetts homeschooling family’s refusal to vaccinate their infant on religious grounds has spiraled into a nightmare of state intervention, criminal charges, and family separation that raises alarming questions about parental rights in America.
At a Glance
- Massachusetts DCF seized custody of five children after parents declined to vaccinate their 9-month-old for religious reasons
- Parents Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion fled to Texas with their children and were subsequently arrested for “familial kidnapping”
- The children were found unharmed, with four placed with their grandmother and the youngest with an aunt
- Mother has been released on bail, while father Rivera remains incarcerated and representing himself at an April 15th court hearing
- Case highlights tension between religious freedom, parental rights, and government authority over children’s healthcare
Government Intervention Following Vaccination Refusal
The ordeal began when Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion, devout homeschooling parents of five children, informed their pediatrician they would not be vaccinating their 9-month-old baby due to religious convictions. Despite Massachusetts law allowing religious exemptions for vaccinations, the doctor filed a 51A “neglect” report with the Department of Children and Families (DCF), triggering a cascade of events that would tear the family apart.
“The doctor said if we didn’t vaccinate, he’d have to report us,” Rivera explained according to reports detailing the family’s circumstances.
When DCF demanded a home visit following the report, the parents refused, citing concerns about government overreach. This refusal prompted DCF to escalate the situation by filing a “care and protection” petition. A judge subsequently granted an emergency order authorizing the state to take custody of all five children, not just the unvaccinated infant, despite no allegations of abuse or endangerment for the other children.
Family Flight and Legal Consequences
Faced with losing all their children, Rivera and Encarnacion made the desperate decision to flee Massachusetts with their children to Texas. This action, while understandable from the perspective of parents attempting to keep their family intact, led to criminal charges of “kidnapping a minor by a relative” for both parents. Authorities located the family in Texas, arrested the parents, and returned the children to Massachusetts.
“This is a blatant violation of fundamental rights on multiple levels,” said Ron Bouchard, one of several voices criticizing the government’s handling of the case.
Medical examinations confirmed the children were all in good health when found. The four oldest children were placed with Encarnacion’s mother, while the youngest was sent to live with her sister. Encarnacion has since been released on bail, but Rivera remains incarcerated and has chosen to represent himself at his upcoming April 15th court appearance in Massachusetts.
Legal Precedents and Parental Rights
The Rivera-Encarnacion case is not the first instance of vaccination decisions affecting custody. A similar situation occurred in Chicago when a judge ordered Rebecca Firlit to lose custody of her son for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, though the decision was later reversed after media scrutiny. Firlit’s experience highlights the potential overreach of the judiciary in family medical decisions.
“He was placing his views on me. And taking my son away from me,” Firlit said of the judge who temporarily stripped her of custody rights.
Legal experts have varying positions on when courts should intervene in vaccination decisions. Family attorney John L. Collar expressed concern about judicial overreach, stating, “I would say it’s unconstitutional, truthfully, but I just think that’s why the trial courts are not really going to get into their constitutionality issues associated with it.” Other attorneys suggest courts might reasonably order vaccination only in specific circumstances where a child’s health is directly at risk.
A Family’s Uncertain Future
As the case proceeds through the legal system, Rivera continues to defend himself without legal representation. During his court appearance, Rivera faced five counts of kidnapping a minor by a relative. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for parental rights, religious freedoms, and the boundaries of state intervention in family healthcare decisions throughout the country.
“I don’t think a 51A should have been filed in the first place,” commented Kevin Larson, one of many observers questioning whether the initial medical report that triggered the family’s ordeal was appropriate given Massachusetts’ religious exemption policies for vaccinations.
The Rivera-Encarnacion case continues to gain national attention as it touches on fundamental tensions between parental authority, religious liberty, public health policies, and the limits of government intervention in family life. As courts increasingly face similar cases involving parental healthcare decisions, the resolution of this case may establish important precedents for families across America who face conflicts between their personal beliefs and government mandates.
