US Paperwork

U.S. / Maryland Legal context: 1982–1983

When the child arrived in Maryland in 1982–83, she was not yet legally adopted.

Under Maryland law at that time, foreign children entered on a guardianship order and were subject to the Guardianship and Adoption statutes in the Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings (CJP § 5-301 et seq.) and Family Law Article (Title 5, Subtitles 3–4).

Guardianship vs. Adoption:
A guardianship gave a U.S. adult temporary legal authority for medical and custodial decisions pending adoption approval by a Maryland court.
The child remained a ward of the court until a formal decree of adoption issued.

Consent requirements:
Under CJP § 5-303 and Family Law § 5-321, consent for major medical procedures on a ward required authorization by the guardian and continuing court jurisdiction.
Hospitals were expected to verify both lawful custody and capacity to consent.

Medical oversight:
Hospitals performing experimental or non-therapeutic procedures were bound by federal human-subjects protections (45 CFR 46, Subpart D) and required an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure informed consent and minimal risk to minors.
Johns Hopkins maintained IRBs since the 1970s, however records from Johns Hppkins has confirmed there is no IRB review for Deepa's case, indicating a compliance failure.

Religious status and constitutional rights:
Changing a child’s recorded religion while under court guardianship, such as from Catholic to Lutheran, would have violated her First Amendment rights and Maryland’s own religious-freedom guarantees.
Under both the U.S. Constitution and Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, a ward’s faith could not be altered without lawful consent or court order.
Any such change by a hospital or guardian acting under state authority constituted a constitutional breach.

Statute of limitations:
Maryland’s civil limitations clock for medical injury (CJP § 5-109) did not begin until the injured party reached majority or discovered the injury, clarified later in Piselli v. 75th Street Medical (2002).
This means childhood experimentation remained actionable decades later.

In 1982–83, Maryland law required court-supervised guardianship, valid consent, IRB oversight, and respect for constitutional religious freedom before performing invasive procedures on a non-adopted child.

Proceeding without those approvals breached state guardianship statutes, federal research-ethics regulations, and First Amendment protections.