Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Not seeking medical treatment for your child in accordance with your religious beliefs, your Constitutional right? Child abuse?

 Ore. (RNS) After just an hour of deliberation, jurors on Tuesday (June 7) unanimously found two members of a faith-healing church guilty of felony criminal mistreatment for not seeking medical care for their daughter.

Timothy and Rebecca Wyland face up to five years in prison but are likely to receive probation and possibly some time in jail. They will be sentenced June 24.

As the verdict was read, Timothy Wyland slipped his arm around his wife's waist, and the couple stoically faced the judge. The Wylands made no comment after the proceedings, walking out of the courtroom surrounded by supporters from their church, some of them sobbing.

The couple's daughter, Alayna, was born in December 2009 with a birthmark above her left eye that developed into an abnormal growth of blood vessels, known as a hemangioma. As the growth slowly engulfed her left eye, the Wylands never consulted a doctor.

The case is the latest involving members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ church, which considers medical treatment a rejection of religious faith. The Wylands are the third church couple to be prosecuted over the past two years for failing to provide medical treatment to their children.

In the two previous cases, the children died. In the Wyland case, 18-month-old Alayna has improved under court-ordered medical care.

The swift and unanimous verdict stunned the Wylands, their attorneys and about 20 church members who attended the session.

In her closing argument Tuesday, lead prosecutor Christine Landers dismissed the defense attorneys' efforts to portray the Wylands as victims of overly aggressive child-welfare workers who snatched their daughter and persecuted the couple for their religious beliefs.

Landers called the defense a smokescreen intended to obscure the facts and distract jurors. The couple had six and a half months to seek medical attention for Alayna and they did not, she noted.

"They never would have. The reason why ... is because of their faith," she said.

For the first six months of 2010, the Wylands watched as the growth on their daughter's face ballooned. The Wylands relied on faith-healing rituals -- prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands.

Under Oregon law, a parent or guardian has committed first-degree criminal mistreatment if that person "intentionally or knowingly withholds ... medical attention."

The Wylands testified during a juvenile court custody hearing last summer that they wouldn't have willingly taken Alayna to a doctor because it would violate their religious beliefs. The Wylands said they put their trust -- and Alayna's fate -- in God's hands.

Defense attorneys portrayed the Wylands as loving parents who fully cooperated with state officials and court orders once Alayna was in state custody, diligently attending doctor appointments and making sure Alayna received her medication.

Landers called the defense attorneys' attempt to focus on what happened after Alayna was in state custody misleading.

"They want to minimize the conduct of their clients," Landers told the jury. "They don't live in some mountain village in Nepal where they've never heard of doctors."

Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote, who has had several faith-healing trials under his watch, released a short statement: "We agree with the jury's verdict and appreciate their service. There is another case pending trial so we will have no further comment."

Foote was referring to another couple from the church whose son was born prematurely and died nine hours later. They are scheduled to go on trial in September on charges of second-degree manslaughter.

Answer Question

Asked by sweet-a-kins at 10:14 PM on Jun. 8, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
Answers (20)
  • This question is always hard to answer.

    I would think that their religious believes should be respected, but at the same time could I let a child die for no reason??


    Answer by gammie at 10:18 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • While I think religious beliefs should be respected, I think there does need to be a line somewhere. If a religion stated that each follower needed to murder someone in cold blood, would we accept that as a defense? no, we would not. These are children that are able to be treated medically, yet these people are refusing to do so.

    I must admit, I do not understand why these people believe things like this. I grew up near Amish families that shun 'modern' conveniences such as TV, cars, electricity, but they at least will take their kids to doctors when they are ill. Why do these people think that they can not take their child to a doctor? 


    Answer by layh41407 at 10:24 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • There is no constitutional right to abuse and neglect children . And permit children to die as a consequence .

    The law regarding manslaughter does not make an exception for peoples' religious beliefs . Everyone is equal under the law regardless of religion .


    Answer by janet116 at 10:24 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • I can't imagine why anyone would deny medical care to anyone, especially a child but I am not them. Imo, the miracles of medicine come from God...

    Answer by agentwanda at 10:35 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • I think it is ignorance, blind faith and child abuse.

    Answer by minnesotanice at 10:37 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • I believe they should be prosecuted for the death of the child. If I were a judge and had to interpret the law in this case, my reasoning would be, If prayer was supposed to heal their child, then they didn't pray enough and should be punished for that.

    Answer by Kitkat61277 at 10:39 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • I agree with the verdict

    Answer by adnilm at 10:39 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • Child abuse. Last time I checked I see no where where it is okay to let a child die because religious beliefs says its okay.

    Answer by mommy_of_two388 at 10:47 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • Agree with the verdict. IF a condition has a known and proven treatment like blood for anemia or antibiotics for pneumonia, then a parent's desireshould be trumped in an effort to cure the child. OTHO, if the child has an end stage illness that has zero hope for recovery via proven conventional treatments, that might be a mitigating factor. Children should have protective HC rights beyond and independent of their parents- each case must be dealt with on an individual basis. I have seen a court order obtained in an effort to provide needed treatment for a critically ill child.


    Answer by Sisteract at 10:49 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

  • As always - I don't want to hand the government the right to force me to do things I don't agree with to my child, whether that's give them medication for a condition that can be treated with diet, or force chemotherapy for a cancer with a 5% survival rate. It's easy to say it's black and white when it's someone else's kid and someone else's illness. How would you like someone to swoop in and charge you with abuse for disagreeing with any random doctor?

    Answer by NotPanicking at 10:57 PM on Jun. 8, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.