Anti Vax

A

arbortrail22

Member
Hypothetical question -

Children are 9 and 10 - have been fully vaccinated from birth including flu shots every year.

Parents are divorced- share custody on important medical decisions.

One parent in the past year has become anti-vaccinations and has just withdrawn all consent for vaccinations.

That parent took the children for flu vaccinations as late as 2019.

Thoughts on if one parent revokes consent here the other must follow? Interested in points of view. Thank you.
 
There is no "point of view". The case law is pretty much a consensus.

Vaccines are recognized as an appropriate medical treatment. If one parent supports vaccines, and the other does not, the judges always side with the parent whose opinion lines up with the medical community.

The parent who supports vaccines does not even have to go to court. Just notify the other parent that you are giving the kids a vaccine. Let them try and take you to court and attempt to stop you.
 
What would you do if the other parent continues to "withdraw consent" for otherwise previous status quo medical decisions? For example, "withdrawing consent" for flouride 5 minutes before a dentist appointment starts by calling the dentist office and sending texts. There is a larger issue medical custody considering a change in beliefs.... however, until we can move forward with motions, do you just comply with the request? Obviously not following the dispute resolution in the agreement.
 
Is there nothing in your agreement related to final decision making authority? A lot of agreements have something along the lines of “however if both parties cannot agree, Parent A has final decision making authority for day to day medical decisions.”

I would think a fluoride treatment is day to day. As opposed to major dental surgery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The existing agreement is joint decision making with no final authority. Calling the dentist last minute was a strong move as now the office won't do it. Oh the games!
 
Most separation agreements have a dispute resolution clause. Parents have joint decision but if they cannot agree they can seek a mediator. If mediator does not untangle issue, then either can bring forth a court application.

Having joint custody means joint decision making. This does not mean that Parent A decides and tells Parent B what they decided and therefore Parent B must agree. It means that both parents approach an issue and discuss the possible options and arrive at a consensus on a particular decision. This would include a proper period of time for open discussion on the issue.

Calling dentist 5 minutes before an appointment and dictating how its going to be is not joint decision making. The proper course of action would have been for Parent A to discuss the topic with Parent B well in advance and figure out if they are in agreement or disagreement. If not, then seek dispute resolution on the topic. Having one parent unilaterally make the call without giving the other parent the opportunity for any input will only backfire on them.
 
Brampton33 said:
Most separation agreements have a dispute resolution clause. Parents have joint decision but if they cannot agree they can seek a mediator. If mediator does not untangle issue, then either can bring forth a court application.
Click to expand...

Most agreements written by lawyers worth their weight don't have mediation clauses. They have arbitration clauses. Sometimes mediation-arbitration clauses.

Brampton33 said:
Calling dentist 5 minutes before an appointment and dictating how its going to be is not joint decision making. The proper course of action would have been for Parent A to discuss the topic with Parent B well in advance and figure out if they are in agreement or disagreement. If not, then seek dispute resolution on the topic. Having one parent unilaterally make the call without giving the other parent the opportunity for any input will only backfire on them.
Click to expand...

Problem is that this is a high-conflict parent that pulls this stunt. Reasonable people do this so reasonable expectations of conflict resolution go out with the bath water in these situations.
 
arbortrail22 said:
Hypothetical question -

Children are 9 and 10 - have been fully vaccinated from birth including flu shots every year.

Parents are divorced- share custody on important medical decisions.

One parent in the past year has become anti-vaccinations and has just withdrawn all consent for vaccinations.

That parent took the children for flu vaccinations as late as 2019.

Thoughts on if one parent revokes consent here the other must follow? Interested in points of view. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Are you talking specifically about the covid vaccine? Or about vaccines in general? Covid vaccine isn't approved for use in children that age.
 
The COVID vaccines are up in the air still.....they have not followed a common path to releasing them yet.
If you are really concerned send you ex the case law and then make some deal with them like they will get the shot X months after it gets widespread approval for kids their age OR is a requirement for hockey. Avoiding court is best.
 
Looks like we are filing this week for final decision making on vaccinations as the ex withdrew consent for all vaccinations. We are doing an emergency motion so that the kids can be vaccinated for COVID before school starts. I'm sure there are many other co-parents in this situation... anyone else?
 
The vaccine isn't approved yet for children under 12, so unless they end up approving it over the summer, they won't be eligible to receive it before school starts?
 
There are trials underway for the under 12 (vaccinations are generally better the younger the person is hence the aggressive vaccination schedule for children) so it will be approved. Considering the backlog in the courts it is better to get the issue settled now so that the children can be vaccinated as soon as they are eligible.
 
Kinso said:
A.P. v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150 (https://canlii.ca/t/jcgf7)
B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2020 ONCJ 438 (https://canlii.ca/t/j9z23)

Very recent cases on this issue.

Short answer: Kids get vaccinated absent clear medical evidence that a certain child should not be. The parent who supports vaccines will likely get custody on medical issues.
Click to expand...

Your assessment of those cases is grossly incorrect and out of context.

1) Neither case handed over medical custody for anything but the administration of vaccines.

2) 2020 case: explicitly excluded COVID vaccines and stated they they are out of scope for the order and can be revised another time.

3) 2021: 2 and a 6 year old child. This was a complex medical case that involved a unique genetic issue, specific medically sound yet opposing views.
These also involved vaccines that were of standard issuance for all children.


I with the changing political and medical views on both COVID its less dangerous variants and a vaccine that is arguably gene therapy (because that is the technology the medical and scientific community just now obtaining data (analyzed) that allows for an informed decision when it comes to children.......any court case trying to force or prevent COVID vaccinations is up in the air.
 
cleanSlate said:
Your assessment of those cases is grossly incorrect and out of context.

1) Neither case handed over medical custody for anything but the administration of vaccines.

2) 2020 case: explicitly excluded COVID vaccines and stated they they are out of scope for the order and can be revised another time.

3) 2021: 2 and a 6 year old child. This was a complex medical case that involved a unique genetic issue, specific medically sound yet opposing views.
These also involved vaccines that were of standard issuance for all children.


I with the changing political and medical views on both COVID its less dangerous variants and a vaccine that is arguably gene therapy (because that is the technology the medical and scientific community just now obtaining data (analyzed) that allows for an informed decision when it comes to children.......any court case trying to force or prevent COVID vaccinations is up in the air.
Click to expand...


It’s only up in the air if cases haven’t been heard yet. As many people have noted, judges don’t turn their backs on the body that signs their cheques. That means a judge will not side against the government.

Unless there is a glaringly obvious reason why a child can’t be vaccinated, a judge will order it and give the supportive parent medical decision making power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top