On June 17, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a significant decision in Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education, a case examining the constitutional rights of parents and children in the context of medical decision-making for minors.

The case arose from allegations that a 14-year-old student received a COVID-19 vaccination at a school-sponsored clinic despite his objection and without parental consent. According to the complaint, school officials had informed parents that testing would be available following a COVID-19 exposure event involving a high school football team. The student reportedly attended the clinic expecting only to be tested.

While earlier proceedings focused on whether federal PREP Act immunity barred the lawsuit, the North Carolina Supreme Court previously ruled that although the Act may shield defendants from tort claims such as battery, it does not automatically eliminate claims based on violations of the North Carolina Constitution. The Court of Appeals was tasked with determining whether the plaintiffs had adequately alleged constitutional claims.

The appellate court concluded that they had.

Of particular importance to family law practitioners and parents, the court emphasized the North Carolina Supreme Court's recognition that the state's Law of the Land Clause protects "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests"—a parent's right to direct the upbringing, care, and control of their children. The Supreme Court had previously reaffirmed that parents possess a constitutional liberty interest in making important decisions concerning their minor children, including medical decisions.

The court also highlighted the constitutional right to bodily integrity, including the right to refuse non-mandatory medical treatment.

Although the Court did not decide whether the defendants ultimately violated those rights, it held that the allegations were sufficient to proceed. The court further determined that the plaintiffs may pursue direct constitutional claims because federal immunity effectively foreclosed traditional tort remedies, leaving no adequate state-law remedy available.

For family law attorneys, the case serves as a reminder that parental rights are not merely statutory—they are constitutional in nature. North Carolina courts continue to recognize that decisions affecting a child's health, welfare, education, and upbringing generally belong first to parents absent a compelling legal justification for state intervention.

The ultimate merits of the Happel case remain to be determined on remand, but the decision stands as a notable reaffirmation of the constitutional protections surrounding parental authority and medical decision-making for minor children in North Carolina.

Guy Vitetta, Charleston