In a shocking case that has ignited national debate, Massachusetts authorities removed five children from their parents’ custody after the couple refused routine vaccinations for their 9-month-old baby, citing religious beliefs. This incident, involving homeschooling parents Isael Rivera and Ruth Encarnacion, raises critical questions about parental rights, religious exemptions, and the extent of state power in medical decisions. As the case unfolds, it could set a precedent for how far governments can intervene in family healthcare choices.
A Family’s Ordeal Begins
The conflict began when Rivera and Encarnacion informed their pediatrician, Dr. Behzad Goharfar, of their decision to forgo vaccinations for their infant due to sincerely held religious beliefs. According to family testimony, Dr. Goharfar warned that he would file a 51A neglect report with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) if they did not comply with the state’s vaccination schedule. Massachusetts law permits religious exemptions for vaccinations, particularly for school attendance, making the report controversial.
[](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-vaccination-immunization)Attempting to avoid escalation, the parents sought a new pediatrician. However, DCF soon arrived at their Worcester-area home, demanding a visit. Fearing the loss of their children, the family fled to Texas, believing it offered greater protection for their religious freedoms.
Arrest and Custody Battle
The situation escalated when DCF issued a Care and Protection Order, approved by a Massachusetts judge without notifying the parents or holding a hearing, according to legal filings. An Amber Alert was issued, and on March 8, 2025, Rivera and Encarnacion were arrested in Whitney, Texas, charged with five misdemeanor counts of “kidnapping a minor by a relative.” Each charge carries up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
[](https://yournews.com/2025/04/14/3374122/massachusetts-seizes-five-children-after-parents-refuse-infant-vaccination-on/)The children, found safe and unharmed, were returned to Massachusetts and placed in DCF custody. Medical examinations confirmed they were in good health, with no vaccinations administered against parental wishes. The four older children are now with their grandmother, while the youngest is with an aunt. Encarnacion, released on $7,500 bail, faces supervised visitation restrictions, and Rivera remains incarcerated, representing himself in court.
[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/massachusetts-took-custody-of-five-children-after-doctor-reported-parents-for-not-vaccinating-baby-report/)
Critics Slam Government Overreach
The case has drawn fierce criticism from constitutional and religious liberty advocates. “This is a blatant violation of fundamental rights,” said constitutional strategist Ron Bouchard. “What imminent danger justified tearing this family apart?” Encarnacion’s attorney, Kevin Larson, argues the 51A report lacked legal grounds, given Massachusetts’ religious exemption policies.
[](https://yournews.com/2025/04/14/3374122/massachusetts-seizes-five-children-after-parents-refuse-infant-vaccination-on/)Advocacy groups, including those focused on religious liberty, warn that the case could chill parental rights nationwide. “If refusing a medical procedure on religious grounds warrants child seizure, every parent should be alarmed,” a legal advocate stated. The American Bar Association notes that vaccine refusal cases often hinge on proving medical neglect, which critics say is absent here.
[](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5308147/)Legal and Ethical Questions
The Rivera-Encarnacion case highlights tensions between public health mandates and individual freedoms. While vaccine mandates aim to protect communities, Massachusetts’ allowance of religious exemptions complicates enforcement. Historical cases, like Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), affirm state authority to mandate vaccinations but also recognize limits in extreme cases.
[](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/)Critics argue that DCF’s actions, including the lack of due process, violate constitutional protections. The American Academy of Pediatrics cautions against labeling vaccine refusal as neglect without clear evidence of harm, suggesting engagement over punitive measures.
[](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/)What’s Next?
As the case progresses, Rivera’s court appearance on April 15, 2025, could shape its outcome. The national spotlight, fueled by posts on X, reflects public outrage, with some calling for DCF reform. The case may influence future legislation on parental rights and medical mandates, potentially reaching higher courts to clarify the balance between state power and personal beliefs.
Author: Planet-Today.com via AFP