Adjudication; Request for a jury instruction based on MCL 722.634 (limited, religious-based defense for a parent or guardian who does not provide a child with a specified medical treatment); “Legitimately”; Constitutional right to free exercise of religion; “Legitimately practicing” a religious belief; Whether MCL 722.634 was unconstitutional because it impermissibly interfered with a child’s constitutional right to life; Whether error was harmless; MCL 712A.2(b)(2); Admission of autopsy photos; MRE 401-403

The court held that the trial court’s determination that “legitimately” as used in MCL 722.634 “means that a parent or guardian’s religious beliefs must be legitimate” was unconstitutional and inconsistent with the language of the statute. Further, because a rational view of the evidence supported giving the requested jury instruction based on the statute, the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondents-parents’ request. But the court rejected their challenge to admission of their deceased infant’s (AP) autopsy photos. Concluding that the error in failing to give the requested instruction required reversal, it reversed the orders terminating their parental rights and remanded for a new adjudication trial, at which the trial court shall instruct the jury pursuant to MCL 722.634. The statute provides that “[a] parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian.” The court concluded that the trial court erred in ruling “that respondents’ religious beliefs lacked legitimacy solely because their beliefs were not represented by a tenet or rule of a religious organization.” In addition, it found that the trial court misconstrued the statute by interpreting the word legitimately “in connection with ‘religious beliefs’ as opposed to the practice of religious beliefs.” The proper inquiry under the statute “requires consideration of what it means to be ‘legitimately practicing’ a religious belief.” The court held that a parent or guardian, in order to be legitimately practicing his or her religious beliefs, must “be actually practicing their religious beliefs at the time that they did not provide a child with specified medical treatment. That means that the parent or guardian’s reason for not providing treatment cannot be a false or spurious reason.” If such a finding is supported by a rational view of the evidence, “an instruction in accordance with MCL 722.634 is required.” The record contained testimony “that respondents were actually, i.e., legitimately, practicing their religious beliefs when they did not seek medical treatment for AP. Multiple witnesses testified that respondents had long been advocates of divine healing” and there was evidence that they were actually relying on it when they did not seek medical treatment for AP.