1. In re Guardianship of Barry, 445 So. 2d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. Appl. 1984); In re L.H.R., 321 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. 1984); In re Infant Doe, No. GU 8204–004A (Ind. Cir. Ct. Apr. 12, 1982), reprinted in U.S. Comm’n on Civil Rights, Medical Discrimination Against Children with Disabilities 389 (1989) (hereinafter U.S. Civil Rights Comm’n Report), appeal denied sub nom. State ex rel. Infant Doe v. Baker, No. 482S140 (Ind. Sup. Ct. May 28, 1982), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 961 (1983); In re P.V.W., 424 So. 2d 1015 (La. 1982); Maine Medical Ctr. v. Houle, No. 74–145 (Super. Ct. Me. Feb. 14, 1974), reprinted in2 Issues L. & Med. 237 (1986) (ordering treatment for infant born with multiple defects and a blockage of the esophagus); In re Steinhaus, No. J-86–92 (Minn. Juv. Ct. Sept. 11, 1986), reprinted in U.S. Civil Rights Comm’n Report, supra, at 493, modified, In re Steinhaus, No. J-86–92 (Minn. Juv. Ct. Oct. 13, 1986), reprinted in U.S. Civil Rights Comm’n Report, supra, at 511; Weber v. Stony Brook Hosp., 467 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div.) (permitting parents to choose conservative treatment for infant with spina bifida, microcephaly, and hydrocephalus), aff’d, 456 N.E.2d 1186 (N.Y.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 1026 (1983); In re Cicero, 421 N.Y.S.2d 965 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979).
2. Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101–5106, 5111–5113, 5115, 10401–10412 (1988).
3. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2281 (1986)
4. Ind. Code § 31-6-4-3(7)(f) (Burns Supp. 1991)
5. R.I. Gen. Laws § 40-11-3 (1990)