Parental Rights

Noncustodial Parent Required to Get COVID Vaccine or COVID Test Before Exercising Visitation

|

From C.B. v. D.B. (No. 308204/2019, N.Y. County), decided Thursday by N.Y. state judge Matthew Cooper:

Throughout most of modern medical history, the advent of a vaccine was almost universally embraced as a means of protecting ourselves and our children from deadly or debilitating disease. In my lifetime, I need only think of how polio was eradicated in this country as a result of the vaccine first developed by Jonas Salk, with other diseases, such as measles, rubella, and diphtheria, having been similarly eliminated.

Then came COVID-19. Fortunately, most people, heeding expert medical opinion, have availed themselves of vaccines that promise not only to protect them and others from the ravages of COVID-19, but ultimately to completely vanquish the virus. Unfortunately, and to my mind, incomprehensibly, a sizeable minority, seizing upon misinformation, conspiracy theories, and muddled notions of "individual liberty," have refused all entreaties to be vaccinated.

In this ongoing divorce case involving a three-year-old child, the issue of COVID-19 vaccination is now before me. The issue is not one of whether the child should be vaccinated; she is still too young to receive any of the vaccines. Nor is it one of whether I can require an adult to be vaccinated; to do so would stretch the authority of a matrimonial court to unprecedented lengths.

Instead, the issue is whether the [mother], who has de facto custody of the child and is fully responsible for her care and upbringing, can condition the [father]'s access with the child, which is limited and supervised, on [father] and his supervisor being vaccinated, or at the very least, submitting to a testing regimen prior to each of the access periods….

[Mother], recounting [father]'s history of substance abuse and untreated mental health issues, as well as the significant periods where he had not seen the child at all, sought to have [father]'s access subject to supervision. Sharing [mother]'s concerns for the child's safety and well-being while in [father]'s care, I directed, by an order dated May 13, 2021, that his parental access be supervised by Comprehensive Family Services, an independent parenting services agency. I later modified the order to permit supervision by [father]'s parents.

Although there has yet to be a final determination as to custody, [mother] is the residential parent, with the child living exclusively with her in Manhattan, where the parties lived prior to their separation in 2019 and where the child attends preschool. [Father] lives with his parents on Long Island. His parenting time with his daughter is limited to daytime access every other weekend and continues to be supervised by his parents, mainly his mother. The child is represented by a Guardian ad Litem (the "GAL") appointed by the court….

On September 2, 2021, [mother], joined by the GAL, made an emergency oral application for [father] and any supervisor utilized for [father]'s access to be vaccinated against COVID-19. On that date, I issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) suspending [father]'s in-person access on an interim basis until he was vaccinated…. [Two weeks later,] both [mother] and the GAL stipulated on the record that, in lieu of [father] showing proof of his being vaccinated, they would accept his agreeing to a regular protocol of COVID-19 testing as a condition for the resumption of in-person parenting time. [Father], for reasons that seemed more connected to his animosity to [mother] than anything else, refused this reasonable proposal.

Following the argument, I continued the TRO but amended it to provide that [father]'s in-person access with the child would remain suspended until he and any approved supervisor either received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine or submitted to a COVID-19 testing regimen that included a PCR test once per week and a COVID-19 antigen test (AKA "rapid test") within 24 hours of any in-person visit. As with the original TRO, [father] was to continue to have liberal virtual and telephone access….

It is well-established that there is a "rebuttable presumption that visitation by a noncustodial parent is in the child's best interest and should be denied only in exceptional circumstances" where "compelling reasons and substantial evidence show that visitation would be detrimental to the child" or is otherwise "inimical to the welfare of the child." Further, "[t]he paramount concern when making a parental access determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances."

Here, in-person parental access by [father] is not in the child's best interests, and there are exceptional circumstances that support its suspension. The danger of voluntarily remaining unvaccinated during access with a child while the COVID-19 virus remains a threat to children's health and safety cannot be understated. Although some children infected with the virus experience mild symptoms, others are subject to serious illness and long-term health effects. Children under the age of 12 have not yet been approved to receive COVID-19 vaccines, so they are dependent upon the vaccination and health status of the adults around them. The danger extends beyond this child and includes a risk of serious infection to any person with whom the child comes into contact, including [mother], the child's classmates, and their families….

The widespread availability of three different no-cost COVID-19 vaccines, with their continued, proven efficacy in preventing the spread of the virus and the development of serious symptoms in those who contract it, has resulted in the expectation that one must be vaccinated in order to participate meaningfully in everyday society. As of August 17, 2021, New York City requires everyone over the age of 12 to provide proof of vaccination to enter bars, restaurants, indoor entertainment, and gyms. [Other examples omitted. -EV] …

Most relevant to this case, the child's preschool requires that teachers, staff, and any parent who participates in pick-ups or drop-offs or is otherwise involved in any school activity all be vaccinated. [Father] professes to love his daughter with all his being, and he asserts that he wants nothing more than to play an active and meaningful role in her life, which, presumably, would include dropping her off and picking her up from school and being part of her school community. Nevertheless, he adamantly refuses to do what his daughter's schoolmates' parents have all been required to do—be vaccinated.

[Father]'s arguments against vaccination are unconvincing. In response to [mother]'s emergency oral application on September 2, 2021, [father] stated that because he already had COVID-19, he believed he carries sufficient antibodies to the virus. To this end, he asserted he would consult with his doctor and provide expert medical opinion as to if he should receive the vaccine, and if so, when.

In his affidavit in opposition, however, [father] abandoned that argument and seemingly never consulted with a medical professional about being vaccinated. Instead, he adopted the novel position that his "religious beliefs as a Roman Catholic" precluded him from receiving the vaccine. This justification rings hollow given that Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, is vaccinated and has encouraged Catholics everywhere to be vaccinated for "the common good."

[Father] also sought to depict any vaccination requirement as an unreasonable intrusion on his rights as an American citizen. In doing so, he failed to recognize that those rights are not absolute but are subject to his duty as a citizen to other citizens and his duty as a parent to his child.

It is not necessary to more fully address [father]'s reasons for not being vaccinated, be they medical, religious, or constitutional. This is because he was offered an alternative to vaccination: submit to regular COVID-19 testing. When presented with this option, [father] rejected it outright unless the [mother] was subject to the same testing regimen. Given that [mother] is fully vaccinated, and she has daily in-person contact with the child as her full-time residential parent, it is apparent that [father]'s ultimatum was motivated by a desire to burden the [mother] as opposed to a commitment to keeping his child safe.

In suspending [father]'s in-person access on an interim basis, I am, of course, cognizant of the pronouncement of our Court of Appeals … that even temporary custody determinations should generally be made only after a plenary hearing. The Court recognized, however, that the "'general' right to a hearing is not an absolute one." There are multiple reasons here not to deprive [mother] and the GAL of the relief they seek without having to wait weeks or months for a plenary hearing. These include the exigency of the circumstances with the risk of imminent harm to the child, the already extensive experience I have with the parties and my familiarity with their issues involving [father]'s parental access, and the fact that, by necessity, matrimonial courts routinely determine temporary access schedules—unlike determining custody—on motion papers and argument alone….

In the final analysis, the fundamental question in this dispute between the child's two parents is this: What matters more to each of them, his or her own interests or those of their child? On one hand, there is the [father], who is unable to offer any reasonable, let alone compelling, reason why he should not be vaccinated or even undergo testing, resisting both simply because he sees it as his "right" to do so. On the other hand, there is the [mother], who is fully vaccinated and observant of COVID-19 protocols, seeking the imposition of reasonable conditions on [father]'s access not because it somehow benefits her, but because it serves to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the child.

Inasmuch as I find that requiring [father] and anyone regularly supervising his access to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or else undergo regular testing to be in the child's best interests, [mother]'s motion is granted. Accordingly, [father]'s in-person parental access with the child is suspended until such time as he complies with the terms of the amended Temporary Restraining Order. [Father] shall continue to enjoy liberal virtual and telephone access with the child.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: October 9, 1954

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Americans live in a society that is increasingly circumscribed by government dictates. Being told to perform a medical procedure for the benefit of others - 'and for your own good' - goes against the strain of sheer bloody-mindedness that runs throughout American culture.
    It is not just those in the basket of deplorables who refuse to get along, but medical professionals, police, Blacks, and others.
    This is not just a refusal of Science, but also a refusal to do what is being forced upon us for our own good, as determined by those in power.
    I got the vaccine in March.

    1. Vaccine requirements have been commonplace in America for more than a century.

      What is newer (and far less attractive) is a general sense of contrarianism, grievance, alienation, and entitlement among a group that just can't abide all of this damned progress, especially in shambling communities.

      1. Not judges imposing vaccine requirements. A judge is not supposed to legislature, or decide health policy. Let the legislature debate and vote on health policy requirements, and penalties.

        Even if there were a vaccine requirement in the statute, what is the penalty? In the famous 1905 case, the penalty was a $5. The penalty should not be denying a child seeing his father.

        1. Not judges imposing vaccine requirements. A judge is not supposed to legislature, or decide health policy. Let the legislature debate and vote on health policy requirements, and penalties.

          Even if there were a vaccine requirement in the statute, what is the penalty? In the famous 1905 case, the penalty was a $5. The penalty should not be denying a child seeing his father.

          None of this has anything to do with the procedural posture of this case. This was a case about child custody.

      2. Being told you must get vaccinated by those who, before the election, said they would not trust a vaccine developed under Trump doesn't aid in convincing anyone. Calling those who are doubtful stupid, evil, or possibly even Republican will not help.
        "Shambling?" Are you speaking of Blacks?
        If forcing those not complying into unemployment seems to be a good tactic, why not simply arrest them?
        When my wife first became a nurse, so long ago, she did not have to be vaccinated against German measles because she could prove that she had had the disease. If someone had COVID and recovered, they still must be vaccinated.

        1. Kirkland hates blacks.

          1. That could explain visiting a White, bigoty blog.

            (That can't be Mick Taylor on that gold Les Paul? Maybe the '58 Les Paul standard from Ya-Ya's? I say 'no,' but . . . )

          2. But not even a tenth as much as he hates himself.

        2. The possible lack of trust was not because the vax was generally developed while Trump was in office; the possible lack of trust was in reaction to Trump's transparent desire to politically pressure the FDA to prematurely approve a vaccine so that he could have an "October surprise" right before the election. If you think vaccine skepticism is bad now, that would have been far, far worse.

          Fortunately, the FDA (and Pfizer and Moderna) didn't cave, the vaccine was emergency-use approved via standard channels, and has since been fully approved.

          I have no problem trusting the FDA approval that resulted, even if I would have been skeptical of an "October surprise" approval. This isn't a complicated concept; this tired talking point disingenuously conflates "[non]-trust of Trump administration" with "trust of FDA and vaccines themselves".

          Here's an overview (from Oct. 19, 2020) about the leadup to the election and the effort to insulate the FDA from political pressure:
          https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/19/1010646/campaign-stop-covid-19-vaccine-trump-election-day/

          1. No October approval was ever contemplated. What the anti-Trump operatives at the FDA did, was to conceal test data until after the election. The data had been scheduled to be released, under protocols adopted much earlier. Yes, the FDA very much politicized the vaccine in order to sabotage Trump.

            1. "We’re going to have a great vaccine very, very shortly. I think we should have it before the election, but frankly the politics gets involved and that’s OK. They want to play their games,” Trump said in a video posted on Twitter. “The FDA has acted as quickly as they’ve ever acted in history. ... No president’s ever pushed them like I’ve pushed them either, to be honest with you."

              Donald Trump, Oct. 7, 2020.

        3. Maybe things might be different with a novel virus? It's a pretty low amount on the other side of the ledger....

          1. What does novelty have to do with this?

      3. When you talk about the group that can’t abide all this damn progress, are you referring to RFK jr, Jim Carrey, and Robert De Niro? Just trying to clarify, but your bigotry will cause you to ignore this point

  2. I thought the way EV laid out the case was evenhanded and fair. Great job by the judge...most of the opinion was direct and clearly written.
    Unlike most cases I've heard about where the idiot adult refuses to get a vaccine; I actually have a lot of sympathy for the dad here. His mental health struggles were mentioned, and it's a serious issue in America. I always feel back when people make moronic choices and they are (at least in part) due to mental deficiencies.
    On the other hand, as the judges detailed; it is abundantly clear that this particular father was doing this to burden the mother. "I don't need the vaccine b/c I already had Covid. And I can provide evidence from a medical expert supporting this. No, wait. Ignore that last bit. I can't be forced to get the jabs because of my deeply held religious beliefs that I've never mentioned before. No, wait. I'm actually happy to be tested regularly for Covid--as long as my wife also does this same testing." Sorry...we all lose respect for your position when you change arguments at the drop of a hat. No matter how crazy you are. Buh-bye.

    1. santamonica811
      October.9.2021 at 1:38 pm-"On the other hand, as the judges detailed; it is abundantly clear that this particular father was doing this to burden the mother. “I don’t need the vaccine b/c I already had Covid"

      The father has already had covid. His level of immunity is much higher than someone who had the vaccine. The vaccine is not going to increase the level of immunity. What the judge demonstrates is a lack of medical knowledge.

      1. Speaking of a lack of medical knowledge - -
        " . . . but ultimately to completely vanquish the virus."

        That is the first time I have heard even the most fascist mandate lover in the world claim that. For a judge to write that fantasy into a legal ruling is unbelievable.

      2. His level of immunity is much higher than someone who had the vaccine… demonstrates is a lack of medical knowledge.

        1. David Nieporent [demonstrates] a lack of medical knowledge.

          Wow, this is MUCH easier than citing large-scale studies!

          1. That is not large scale "studies." That is a single study, non-peer-reviewed, that people keep citing over and over again because it's all they have, that does not say that the "level of immunity [of a formerly infected person] is much higher than someone who had the vaccine." For many reasons, starting with the fact that it only examined one vaccine, Pfizer.

    2. SM811,
      1) I completely agree that EV laid out the controversy in a clear and even-handed way.
      2) The issue maybe partly obscured by the judge's implicit assumption that the vaccine confers total immunity.
      3) However, The judge is not requiring that the dad get vaccinated, but only that the dad show a negative PCR result prior to visitation with the child.
      That decision seems to be fair and easily consistent with putting the welfare of the child first.

      1. (2) Even though the Judge is totally wrong here. It is clear that all the "vaccines" are not as effective as FowChee, the MSM, and the Dems allege. Thousands of "breakthrough" infections have been documented in fully vaccinated folk. We also don't know how frequently vaccinated folks have transmitted Wuhan Flu to others.

        1. Come on, shithead. What does it cost you to spell the doctor's name correctly? You end up looking like a complete asshole, an illiterate asshole, and therefore, like an unpersuasive asshole.

          If those were your goals in posting...congrats.

          1. What does it cost you to spell WashRep correctly? Congrats on the own goal...shithead asshole.

            1. Don't be a fool. You understand the difference. I made no attempt to spell his username, as you know. You called me a shithead asshole. Which is fine...you ALSO made no effort to make a "clever" use of my name. Insults are expected. Moronic efforts to be clever or smart fall flat 100% of the time. Years, ago, people tried to be clever by using ReTHUGlicans and DemocRATS. Get it! How funny...by using capital letters and changing a letter or two, you end up with tying thugs to Republicans at rats to Democrats. Wow, that is some high-grade humor. And it was funny. For about 15 minutes.

              Dr Fauchi has a perfect adequate name. Someone can criticize him without turning themself into an idiot. Exact same on the other side...any post that refers to our former president as, say, Donald Dump is immediately ignored. It's such a lame and pathetic attempt to demean via humor that it tells me, "I'm too stupid to pay attention to. Please ignore everything I have written after this." Advice that I always try to follow.

    3. sm811...Agree about the Dad, here. He has been 'twisting the tails' of the Mom (and the Court), and the judge was having none of that. To me, the judge nailed it when he emphasized that this was all about the welfare of the child. Sometimes, that gets lost in all the minutiae.

      I cannot say if the judge's remedy is completely right in this instance, but I can say the remedy is not wrong.

  3. The court, and the mom (along with Eugene's commentary) display a signigicant lack of medical knowledge unfortunately heavily influenced by agenda driven science.

    1) The father has already had covid. His level of immunity is much stronger than the immunity from the vaccine.
    2) The vacccines, especially the pfizer vaccine has proven to be less than a vaccine - more of an annual flu shot, with an effectiveness of 50% or so after fewer than 6 months.
    3) The child is at an age were it is important to develop his/her natural immune system. Society should be taking advantage of the fact that children can catch covid, develop a strong long term immunity with very little risk. Sweden took this approach and is much further along with achieving immunity among the general population.

    1. Tom,
      There are two separate points, and it's important to separate them, in the context of custody and visitation cases.
      1. What is the science? You put forward one side, which suggests that the father may be making a reasonable argument. Maybe your understanding is correct; maybe it is not. But let's say that you are 100% correct.
      2. In a custody (or visitation) dispute...if the judge says, "To get what you want, please do X, or Y, or Z." If the father had been my own client, I would have said to him, "Just how bad do you want in-person visit with your child? Just get the fucking vaccines...EVEN IF you think they are completely unnecessary. Just do it. You are taking a "moral" stand, but at the cost of seeing your own kid. You are hurting yourself. And you are hurting your child. Is this really the hill you want to die on?"
      (I would also, privately, tell my client that most judges hate it when you falsely claim religious privileges...that seems to be a hot-button issue. At least, it is in Los Angeles Children Court courtrooms. So, let's not go with the obviously-untrue, I'm-deeply-Catholic, argument.)

      1. Tom,
        There are two separate points, and it’s important to separate them, in the context of custody and visitation cases.
        1. What is the science? You put forward one side, which suggests that the father may be making a reasonable argument. Maybe your understanding is correct; maybe it is not. But let’s say that you are 100% correct.

        At this point - it is well known that immunity from an actual covid infection is much stronger and long term than from the vaccine. See the Israeli study. Further reinfection of covid after previous covid infection is exceedingly rare. Whereas covid infection after vaccination has become fairly common. In my case, I personally know approx 30 individuals that have caught covid after having been vaccinated.

        Currently the infection rate among previously vaccinated is high.
        Current estimates are that approximately 30-50% of current infections are among the previously vaccinated.

        The failure rate of covid vaccines are comparable to the failure rate of the annual flu shot. Difficult to classify the covid vaccine as a vaccine with that high of a failure rate.

        1. Just to quote from EV's exposition:
          "the GAL stipulated on the record that, in lieu of [father] showing proof of his being vaccinated, they would accept his agreeing to a regular protocol of COVID-19 testing as a condition for the resumption of in-person parenting time. "

        2. At this point – it is well known that immunity from an actual covid infection is much stronger and long term than from the vaccine. See the Israeli study.

          That is not what "the Israeli study," which we both know you've never read and wouldn't understand if you did, and which is not peer-reviewed anyway, said.

          In my case, I personally know approx 30 individuals that have caught covid after having been vaccinated.

          Before when you lied about this, you claimed 25.

          1. David Nieporent
            October.10.2021 at 2:21 pm
            Flag Comment Mute User
            At this point – it is well known that immunity from an actual covid infection is much stronger and long term than from the vaccine.

            <My comment - In my case, I personally know approx 30 individuals that have caught covid after having been vaccinated.

            David Nieporent response -

            David - My reference to 25 individuals was last week. It is now up to 30. Though I do not know any who has had covid and has been reinfected.

            1. The ratio of the high number of vaxed individuals who contract covid vs the near zero number of previously covid infected individuals who later become reinfected is reasonably consistent with the israeli study, whats happening in Minnesota during the month of sept 2021 and as reported in other areas.

              The bottom line is the father who previously had covid poses a far lower risk of transmitting covid to the child than the fully vaxed mom.

    2. Tom,
      Whether the dad had COVID or not, he is certainly susceptible to being infected. Therefore, a negative PCR test is perfectly in order.

      1. Don Nico
        October.9.2021 at 2:28 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        Tom,
        Whether the dad had COVID or not, he is certainly susceptible to being infected. Therefore, a negative PCR test is perfectly in order.

        I agree that there remains the possibility for someone had a prior covid infection to become reinfected however trivial that risk may be. Yet the risk of becoming reinfected is by orders of magnitude much less than someone that has only been vaccinated. The judge is not requiring the person who is vaccinated to get tested, he is requiring the parent who has the much higher level of immunity to get tested. Its the judge and the mom that is showing the lack of medical knowledge.

        1. "by orders of magnitude much less than someone that has only been vaccinated"
          Tom,
          There is no evidence that the "orders of magnitude" claim is accurate. If you have such evidence provide it.
          Nonetheless, the dad needs to show a negative PCR on a regular basis.

          1. Don Nico
            October.9.2021 at 2:44 pm
            Flag Comment Mute User
            “by orders of magnitude much less than someone that has only been vaccinated”
            Tom,
            There is no evidence that the “orders of magnitude” claim is accurate. If you have such evidence provide it."

            The evidence is the Israeli study along with the the high percentage of currently infected with covid who have been vaccinated. Minnesota for example - the vaccinated are making up approx 30% of the total cases, deaths of vaccinated are making up 22% of the cases (sept data). Other states are similar.

            1. Tom,
              I read that study.
              It does not support a claim of 100x or 1000x better protection.

          2. Project Salus: AI Analysis from US Department of Defense shows vaccines lead to more severe disease for fully vaccinated elderly
            • The effectiveness of the vaccines is confirmed to wane over time.
            • Natural immunity has the strongest protective effect against breakthrough infection.
            • Real-world vaccine efficacy are lower than previously reported by the clinical trials.
            • As the weeks passed, those inoculated with mRNA vaccines show an increased risk of vaccine failure (also known as breakthrough cases or fully vaccinated individuals testing positive for COVID). They are also at increased risk of COVID infections that would require hospitalization.
            • Vaccine failure dramatically worsens 5-6 months after vaccination. As of August 21, 2021, vaccine failures among those who were vaccinated 3-4 months prior the study were also increasing, but to a much lesser degree than those who were vaccinated 5 to 6 months prior.
            • Both Moderna and Pfizer are showing worsening vaccine failures over time.
            • When the Delta variant became dominant 71% of COVID cases were breakthrough cases.

      2. Is a negative PCR test from the teacher and fellow students needed before allowing the child to go to school?
        What about for friends or other adult visitors to the home?
        For that matter, how often is the mother required to be tested?

        This sort of requirement for just one of the many interactions the kid may have certainly seems to indicate a bias against the dad producing an irrational ruling.

        1. The judge was asked to decide a controversy against competing claims. He did so on a basis of a credible interpretation of CDC guidelines, whatever any of us may think of those guidelines.

          But answering more broadly, the conditions imposed are not more severe than those imposed by many universities or other employers; so a claim of irrationality is not likely to succeed.

          1. The CDC still has the flawed kentucky up on their website. Not surprising for the CDC .

            The conditions imposed by many universities and employers doesnt make bad medical knowledge rational

            1. What about the Kentucky study do you think is "flawed"?

              1. The kentucky study was measuring (attempting to measure) the difference in risk in transmission between a previously covid infected individual who gets the vaccine and a previously covid infected individual who does not get the vaccine.

                The Kentucky did not measure the difference in the risk of transmission between a covid naive person who was vaxed vs an unvaxed person who previously had covid.

                1. That doesn't make the study "flawed"; it just means it didn't directly address the issue you want it to have.

              2. Short time window and small sample size

          2. I would think that the mother demanding protections from the father that she does not require from others would be a good sign that the mother does not believe that being unvaccinated is, in fact, a threat. In direct contrast to, say, the history of drug use.

            And I'm not sure what restrictions by employers has to do with anything here - the child is 3 (4?) years old, and is neither employed nor attending university, although maybe pre-school/child care.

            1. I presume the last point was indicating that those adults the child has contact with are likely to be under vaccine mandate from another source. I could be mistaken.

              1. The judge could have had that idea in mind.

            2. "what restrictions by employers has to do with anything here "
              No direct significance except as a context that surrounds the judge about the extent to which the CDC guidance is accepted.
              I never claimed any other direct significance.
              The dad played a losing hand with this judge and he lost.

              1. Assuming the description of the father is accurate, I can quite understand wanting to keep him away from the kid entirely, much less granting him control over the kid for any period of time.

                What I don't like is the (in my opinion) weak and vague justification given for this restriction, which seems to be more targeted harassment than reasonable risk reduction.

        2. "What about for..."
          The judge was not adjudicating these whataboutisms.
          The controversy was solely concerning the dad. He could have agreed to routine testing OR getting the vaccine.

      3. The judge wasn't just requiring "a" test; it says a PCR test every week *and* a rapid test within 24 hours of a visit.

        How many times can you make someone stick something up their nostrils before it becomes unreasonable?

        1. On that note, I propose the judge be made to abide by his testing regimen for a month. Weekly PCR test and a rapid test within 24 hours of each court session. He thinks it's so reasonable, let him try it.

    3. "Sweden took this approach and is much further along with achieving immunity among the general population."
      That is not true from a simple examination of the epidemiology. You may download numerical data (not graphs) fro Oxford's Our World in Data and compare the data for Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland.
      All have similar patterns but very different numbers of cases per 1 M and deaths per 1 M with Norway and Switzerland outperforming Sweden by a considerable factor.

  4. It sounds like the less access this father has to the child, the better off the child will be. Let's hope this child overcomes the bad draw of a lousy father.

    I also hope the father -- who still lives with his parents and seems a comprehensive loser -- improves.

  5. This is such absolute bullshit. The risk to this child is extremely, extremely small. The judge could do far more to protect the child's safety by forbidding the parents to ever drive the child in a car anywhere or let the child ride in a car of any kind. And that's an idiotic idea because using a car is so beneficial in so many other ways, AS IS THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE FATHER.

    Good freaking lord.

    1. Anyone want to be this person's child? Not me!

    2. And that’s an idiotic idea because using a car is so beneficial in so many other ways, AS IS THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE FATHER.

      Um, you started this sentence fine, but you used the wrong comparison at the end. Using a car is beneficial, which is why banning car use is a bad idea. But not getting vaccinated is not beneficial, which is why requiring vaccination is a good idea.

  6. The Court opined, "The danger of voluntarily remaining unvaccinated during access with a child while the COVID-19 virus remains a threat to children's health and safety cannot be understated."
    It certainly can be overstated. The child is not likely to get COVID from naturally immune dad here. This is not true for the Mom who may asymptomatically carry the virus and give it to her little girl.
    The vaccinated can get and transmit the virus. Citations omitted because they will hit an auto filter and this post will not make it to the board.
    Mom needs to get tested.
    Alienating a father from his three year old daughter has significant negative consequences for the child. Time with a three year old is precious and the bonding is irreplaceable.
    The off chance that dad gives his daughter covid and that she then suffers long term adverse consequences is so statistically low as to be insignificant.
    This Judge's holding is horribly wrong and likely reflects the judge's adherence to current cov19-religious dogma and the dad's inability to effectively articulate his position.

    1. The COVID recovered may also carry the virus, both asymptomatically and with symptoms.
      It is certainly prudent and within the judge's authority to make a decision which is consistent with CDC guidelines, even if those are guidelines are not fully consistent with medical evidence.

      1. I meant to ask before - where does the CDC guidelines require previously infected people to be vaccinated?

        All I could find on the CDC's website was a general statement "We are still learning more about COVID-19" and no recommendations or requirements at all.

        1. Toranth,
          As you note CDC takes no explicit position about COVID-recovered persons. And in that way it de facto considers them in the same group as unvaccinated COVID-naive persons.
          That lack of recognition flies in the face of medical evidence collected and reported in many countries world wide, including the UK and EU countries

          1. Don Nico
            October.10.2021 at 1:36 pm
            Flag Comment Mute User
            Toranth,

            True - it does fly in the face of medical evidence - well known medical evidence world wide. The medical evidence shows the vaccinated are currently making up 10% of the infections, in some regions it is as high as 40% - see the Israeli study, In Minnesota, vaccinated are currently making up 25+% of the infections. reinfections from individuals with prior covid infections is close to zero, in the range of 0.1%.

            1. In Minnesota, vaccinated are currently making up 25+% of the infections. reinfections from individuals with prior covid infections is close to zero, in the range of 0.1%.

              I like how you fabricate different data every time you make these false claims.

              1. David Nieporent
                October.10.2021 at 2:26 pm
                Flag Comment Mute User
                >I like how you fabricate different data every time you make these false claims.<

                Accuse someone of lying because you dont like the facts

                See healthy skeptic - october 4th post on reinfections

          2. I would say that lack of guidelines is not at all the same thing as guidelines against (or for) the opposite. And saying that there are CDC guidelines for handling previously infected people is not accurate when you have to lump them into a different, more general category.

            I think it would be accurate in saying that the judge is in accordance with CDC guidelines for unvaccinated people, which he has chosen to use because there are no official guidelines for people with a previous infection.

            1. When the CDC decides to ignore a sample of more than 45 million American, that is not an oversight.
              It is a deliberate decision to lump these 15% of the US population into the unvaccinated.
              What you claim would be more accurate is just making excuses for US public health policy. The judge had to work with what he has from CDC, namely that the class of COVID recovered does not exist for the purposes of public health policy.

              1. If the CDC decides to ignore a sample of 45 million Americans in any direction it is not an oversight - it is deliberate. And not because it is good science to lump them in with the no infection history unvaccinated, or the CDC would be deliberately stating so.

                In this case, however, the CDC is explicitly saying that this class exists - and then declines to give any guidance for those people. What I claim would be more accurate would be more accurate.
                The judge's decision may have been defensible if the reasoning that you are mind-reading to exist was stated, but in the absence, your claim that he was "just following CDC guidance" is not correct, not matter how often you repeat it.

    2. I thought that was a rather ironic statement on the part of the judge, he clearly didn't think through what he was writing, when he accidentally wrote the truth: It would be quite hard to understate that danger, since it is very close to zero.

    3. Yes, the judge is horribly wrong. His error is to even try a medical analysis. It is out of his expertise and authority. Somehow he thinks he knows more than the legislature, CDC, parents, and everyone else to invent a policy that no one else agree with. This is a good example of what judges should not do.

      1. The judge gave the dad a simple choice: vaccine or routine testing. This has be a consistent regime in most cities and with recommendations of most public health officials.
        Why did you expect anything different?
        When dad plays to lose, he ends up losing.

        1. But he's not requiring that choice of anybody else the child encounters. He's subjecting the child's father to extra burdens, but he can't think they're actually necessary given that nobody else is subject to them.

          It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Covid is just a proxy for some other basis for being hostile to the father's interests.

          1. True enough Brett. But (acting as a mindreader) ( would say that the judge considers that the child assumes that the dad spends hours in close proximity with the child.
            More importantly, the judge was not asked to determine general rules for those who might encounter the father. The controversy was between the mom and the dad. That was all that the judge adjudicated.

    4. JEWISH court opinion on subject matter not before it. There is no evidence of the risk to the child from unvaccinated adults. Judge is a stupid jew doing the devils work using children as weapons of thought control. Dumb, dumb judges. Black robes do no create expertise, just inflates egos.

  7. Stupid (or maybe just willing) judge being manipulated by the mother's lawyers.

    Why doesn't the mother have to show (non-existent) evidence that vaccination reduces COVID transmission? What about all the other unvaccinated people to whom the child is exposed on a regular basis? Maybe both parents should be precluded from taking the child to the grocery store?

    1. Why are you surprised that a judge follows CDC guidance?

      1. AtR
        October.9.2021 at 7:44 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        Stupid (or maybe just willing) judge being manipulated by the mother’s lawyers.

        Why doesn’t the mother have to show (non-existent) evidence that vaccination reduces COVID transmission? What about all the other unvaccinated people to whom the child is exposed on a regular basis? Maybe both parents should be precluded from taking the child to the grocery store?

        CDC guidelines dont reflect current medical knowledge

  8. The JEWS are at it again. JAB the goy, no JAB no visit with own child, denial of a fundamental liberty interest absent evidence of harm, violation due process, 5th, 14th...how jewish, use the kids as punishment for not having a JAB, violation of 8th Amendment. When JEWS find a reason to inflict conflict and discourse everywhere in the host society.

    Did the JEW judge specify a booster too, because the VAXX benefit is gone after 5 months, nooooo....dumb jew judge just playing the communist game, JAB the goy, shred the constitution. Don't need the JAB to join the military, don't need the JAB to fly in an airplane, don't need the JAB to go to elementary school, but this JEW judge demands dad be JAB'd.....how jewish.....equal protection?

    Mom's lesbian lover can sleep over in bed with mom and the kid, no JAB, but dad must have a JAB......the jews are funny bunch, even more colorful in black robes.

    1. Have you tried graduating preschool?

    2. Pavel....Am Chai Yisrael!

      We Jews will still be here as your corpse rots away.

  9. Was the judge evaluating the sincerity of the father's professed Roman Catholicism or its orthodoxy? I think the former, but it is close to the line.

Please to post comments