View Single Post
Old 11-05-2021, 04:51 PM
iona6656 iona6656 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,001
iona6656 is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by rockscan View Post
Im with kkc on this. It seems like the mother was grasping. H. pylori is the ulcer bacteria which is not contagious. She�s claiming her kid got infected from an outdoor visit? Bullshit.

The father should have provided as much documentation as possible and there is a way to be vaccinated while in medical care for allergic reactions. I will give them that but the rest is bullshit.

She sends her kid to school? Schools are high case counts! She claims kid has bronchospasm being in the cold, does she keep her inside during the winter? So many red flags on this that scream trying to reduce time.

There was a case in Windsor where a parent had supervised access ordered because they were taking their kids to anti vaxx rallies and exposing them to large crowds. That was legit in my opinion, this was a total waste of time.
Originally Posted by Kkc View Post
I totally agree the father is fos. The medical note was either from a mercinary doctor or fabricated.

I just wonder if it will be a floodgate one. I am totally pro vaccine.

I just do think the odds of the father contracting covid with the case count is quite low. Well.see if others follow.

The h pylori part is honestly overkill, it is sooooo treatable and if the father was positive on the blood test it does not mean he actually has it (this blood test shows if u have ever had it) and would need a break breath test to confirm active infection. By that point child is already infected...and given antibiotics and all is better.

As an aside, h pylori was always causing perforated ulcers. The scientist who discovered this was laughed at, then he drank soup loaded with it..and then got really sick and every one praised him.
guys- the h pylori is a red herring. the Judge didn't even touch it in the decision.

the judge made a decision that erred on the side of caution in this case because of covid.

the mom might have been grasping and throwing up silly arguments- but I think as it relates to the covid issue- the court got it right here.

It's a reduction in parenting time...but only temporary. If this dude is only getting 2 hrs a week, supervised with his kid...there's more to it.
Reply With Quote