The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Divorced Parents' Tension About COVID Protections, and Possible Violation of Stipulated Agreement, May Lead to Shift from Joint Decisionmaking on Vaccination

The parties agreed in April 2020, "The parties shall comply with all New York State and New York City issued guidelines related to COVID-19 and social distancing for the duration of the crisis ...."


From B.S. v. A.S., decided Tuesday by New York trial court judge Jeffrey S. Sunshine:

The parties share join custody of their daughters—8 and 10 years old—and have diametrically opposed opinions about whether the children should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The mother-defendant filed an emergency application seeking, inter alia, the authority to vaccinat[e] the children.

During the growing worldwide Covid-19 pandemic, the divide between the parents has escalated to the point that judicial intervention is necessary.

The Court recognizes the seriousness of the issue and the tenor of the debate; however, the Court must exercise judicial restraint in honoring the prior stipulations entered into by the parties and by the rights of the parents to raise their children. Here, the Court will adhere to these sound legal principles and will not, under the unique facts and circumstances presented, become embroiled in the political-ideological arguments that divides these parties.

On April 9, 2020, a few weeks after a pandemic emergency was declared the mother commenced an action in Family Court, Kings County seeking modification of the parties' stipulation of Settlement and Judgment of Divorce to require the parties to comply with all state, city and federal social distancing protocols regarding COVID-19 [NYSCEF #23]. The parties resolved that application by entering into a consent stipulation dated April 10, 2020 [the "April 2020 agreement" which was so-ordered. That April 2020 agreement provided, as relevant here, as follows:

"The parties shall comply with all New York State and New York City issued guidelines related to COVID-19 and social distancing for the duration of the crisis [emphasis added]."

The court went in detail through the tension between the parties over masking, social distancing, and travel, and the mother's claims that the father violated the April 2020 agreement, and closed with this:

It is clear that the parties each hold strong opinions—opinions inapposite to one another—as to the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. The parties each propose numerous complex frameworks and rationales for this Court to choose which option is in their children's best interest. The mother argues that health statistics, COVID variant surges in NYC, missed social interactions and the risk posed to the children due to the father's alleged non-compliance with COVID safety guidelines make it necessary to vaccinate the children. The father argues that he does not consent to the children receiving the vaccine because, he alleges, pharmaceutical producers received waivers against future litigation for unknown long-term effects.

Under the facts and circumstances presented, this Court need not at this time become embroiled in the specific disagreement between the parties on the issue of the COVID-19 vaccine. Nor, at this time, does the Court need to become embroiled in a fact-finding proceeding as to which set of experts the parties may offer are "right." As such, the immediate question presented to this Court is not whether the parties should vaccinate or not vaccinate these children: the immediate question presented is whether it is appropriate for the Court to continue joint custody on the limited issue of COVID health care or whether the Court must carve out a sphere of influence on this limited issue.

Here, the immediate issue before the Court is whether the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to the point where the level of acrimony makes joint decision making on the limited issue of the COVID-19 vaccination unsustainable.

Under the unique facts and circumstances herein where the parties already mutually agreed in a so-ordered stipulation on adopting the NYC and NYS guidelines for their family. The issue presented is whether joint custody on this issue remains viable if one of the parties subsequently violated that agreement. The mother raised questions of fact as to the father's compliance. The father did not appear to dispute the allegations raise: instead, the father contends that any non-compliance was not "dangerous" because the children did not contract COVID-19. He contends, in effect, that the mother's standard of proof must be that he jeopardized the children's health by any non-compliance.

The Court does not adopt the mother's position that based on this disagreement it is necessary, at this time, to consider a change of custody as to all medical decision making: both parties acknowledge that they have been successful in navigating all prior medical decisions for the children and the Court should attempt to preserve as much of the parties' prior agreement as possible. Similarly, the Court does not adopt the father's position that any change in custody related to medical decision making would be inappropriate because, he contends, the parties "only" disagree on this "one issue": this issue has wide ranging implications and should not be minimized.

It is possible that the parties remain able to communicate maturely and civilly and to cooperate with one another on all other issues but this one: that general ability does not preclude this Court from carving out a sphere of influence as to the issue where they are unable to do so particularly if the animosity is placing the children "in the middle" of the disagreement which is an issue of concern raised by the attorney for the children. The Court notes that "[s]ince weighing the factors relevant to any custody determination requires an evaluation of the credibility and sincerity of the parties involved, the hearing court's findings are accorded deference, and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record."

One of the central requirements of joint custody is the ability of parents to cooperate with one another. Here, initially, it appears that even though the parties did not agree on how to navigate the pandemic situation they were eventually successful in reaching an agreement on how to cooperate moving forward which they memorialized in the April 2020 so-ordered agreement in which they voluntarily and contractually bound themselves to a specific set of externally determined guidelines. This is an example of parties successfully engaging in joint custody; however, the mother now alleges that the father has refused to comply with what he previously agreed to do.

The mother alleges that the father unilaterally and selectively chooses which geographic locations where he complies with following the NYC and NYS guidelines: this allegation is not disputed by the father in his affidavit in opposition. The parties chose to bind themselves in a contract as to how they will conduct themselves during this pandemic.

These allegations require this Court to consider whether there has been a change in circumstances in which the father became unwilling or unable to cooperate in following the guidelines he voluntarily adopted in the April 2020 agreement. Furthermore, the Court must consider whether the father has become unwilling or unable to communicate with the mother on this issue in a mature and civilized manner or whether the level of acrimony has made it impossible for him to do so on this limited issue.

The mother attached text messages to her application in which she appears to ask the father about compliance with the April 2020 so-ordered agreement—Would the children be wearing masks indoors? Would the children be socially distancing when around unvaccinated non-household members? Etc.—and it appears that the father used these questions as an opportunity to call her demeaning names and to engage in ad hominum attacks on her social views. It appears where the parties agreed to a joint approach to adopting the NYC and NYS guidelines but then if one of them stopped following those guidelines it could place the children in the untenable position of being "in the middle" and not in their best interest.

If it is true that the father is now unable or unwilling to cooperate with his prior consent agreement to follow all NYC and NYS guidelines, is it not proof that joint custody on this issue is no longer appropriate? Whether or not the father stopped complying with the April 2020 agreement requires an evidentiary hearing as does the question, inter alia, of whether the father's use of disparaging name calling of the mother when asked about his compliance demonstrates that he has become unable to communicate with the mother on this issue in a "mature and civilized manner" and whether the level of acrimony makes it impossible for the father to continue to share joint custody on this issue. Under the most recent Appellate Division, Second Department caselaw the Court finds that the mother has alleged sufficient change of circumstances demonstrating a need for a change of custody to ensure the best interests of these children.

The evidentiary hearing will address the following limited issues: 1) whether the level of animosity on the issue of COVID has become such that either party has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to communicate without animosity regarding the best interests of the children on the medical decision making as to COVID issues; and 2) whether the father has cooperated and complied with the April 2020 so-ordered agreement to follow NYC and NYS guidelines. Neither of these questions require the testimony of "COVID experts": the Court need only hear from the plaintiff and the defendant…. The parties may seek permission to call fact witnesses on these limited issues of compliance with the April 2020 agreement and communication between the parties on this issue. The Court need not hear, at this time, any testimony as to the merits of either parties' opinions as to the issue of COVID as that issue is not presently before the Court.

The Court notes that, on consent of all counsel, the Court was notified by e-mail dated December 16, 2021 that after oral argument of this application, one of the children (age 10) tested positive for COVID-19 and is in quarantine with the father. The father must make arrangements to assure that the child (and or children) are shielded from this proceeding and any virtual appearances that may take place during the time with the child or children are in his care. The same is true for the mother if the children are in her care during any virtual proceedings.

Given the seriousness of the issue presented, the Court will adjourn the currently calendared matters from January 3, 2022 and will conduct a virtual evidentiary hearing on the limited issues defined herein-above on January 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. The Court will schedule the in camera with these children upon notice to the attorney for the children. If the children have questions about this proceeding they should be directed to speak with their attorney….

NEXT: Feddie Night Festivus: Blackman vs. Everybody!

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While it is an extremely good idea for adults (age 40+ ) to get vaccinated, and a good idea idea for adults age 25-40 to get vaccinated, especially if they have health issues, It is really counter productive to vaccinate children for Covid

    The risk of adverse effects from a child catching covid is near zero, absent some underlying health problem.

    1. 800 children per day are hospitalized due to covid.

      1. MollyGodiva
        December.24.2021 at 6:19 pm
        Flag Comment Mute User
        "800 children per day are hospitalized due to covid."

        No there are not - and you would know that if you did any due diligence.

      2. Molly "who falls for any BS "Godiva

        Its closer to 8 per day in the US with possibility of approx 1/2 are hospitalizations with covid vs because of covid

        Due diligence with absurd claims is a halmark of the cult of covid over exaggeration.

          1. hospitalization by age shows 138 for the week ending 9.11.2021

            The data in the nbc link is questionable

            I prefer citing source documents

            The 57k cited in the article is also highly inflated.

            The same source document I cited shows 5268 total since March 2020


                Both articles are citing bad data

                Always do you due diligence with source data

              2. Molly and Hobie
                Omicron has been far less deadly than delta and alpha- which raises the question as to why you would be so easily fooled by the WP

                1. Joe,

                  You're the fool. Pediatric admissions are well over 200 per day based on the latest data from the CDC and have averaged roughly 146 per day since August 2020.

                  You just keep citing absolutely incorrect numbers and then accusing other people of being gullible or foolish. You are the fool, Joe.


              another document showing accurate data

              Why people treat the WP or NBC as credible for accurate information

              1. 24500 total hospitalizations over approx 700 days is less than 40 per day -
                no where close to the 800 cited by NBC and the WP

                1. First, Joe Dallas, you said 8 children per day, which is off by an order of magnitude based on historical data. So it's funny you're upset at Molly and Hobie for, allegedly (see below) being off by a factor of 10.

                  Second, the statistics you cite from the CDC show, on average, over 80-120 hospitalizations of 0-17 year olds per day from roughly August through December 18 of this year. (Again, roughly equidistant between your claim and Molly's. So if you are going to excoriate Molly, you should take full responsibility for your own exaggeration (and by equidistant, both were off by a factor of 10. Actually, a little more in your case and a little less in Molly's.))

                  Third, the Washington Post (and therefore Molly) were citing pediatric admissions for Covid-19 to hospitals this week (the week ending Dec 26th), and specifically say it is an uptick, so your statistics from earlier cannot refute what is happening this week.

                  All to say, so far, Joe Dallas is losing this argument in a big way. Even with his own numbers, he was off by a factor of 10, which is a pretty gross distortion of numbers posted by the CDC which he cited and which he urged people to do their due diligence. Apparently, Joe meant fact check his claims even when he cites to source data. But more to the point, the claim was about new hospitalizations this week, so no amount of data from August, September or even the first weeks of December can refute the WP claim that pediatric admission are surging to an average of 800 per day. It's a bad look Joe.

                  1. NOVA,
                    Having said your piece, you should admit that WaPo and NBC are not the best sources of COVID-19 statistics.

                    1. I presume the CDC is the best source. Their numbers are consistent with the WP/NBC reporting I have seen. I mean, we'll see, eventually, whether the official stats match the 800/day reported by the WP, but it doesn't seem unreasonable given CDC's official stats showing 200+ daily admissions in the weeks leading up to this past week (and accelerating rapidly).

                      But sure. WP and NBC are not the best. But they are way, way better than Joe.

                  2. Nova - you obviously did not look at the source data I linked

                    The highest weekly total since March 2021 for children hospitalization has been 120. - weekly total. Not daily total

                    There would have to be a 40x increase in hospitalizations to have 800 daily admissions.

                    Highly unlikely to be true.

                    Though not surprising that you, hobie , molly would be gullible enough to believe it. That is why I linked to the source data.

                    1. Joe failed to realize that his chart is a chart of weekly totals for 100 counties representing 10% of the US population. Thus, his chart supports finding something like 120 daily, not weekly, pediatric admissions US-wide.

                      Moreover, the CDC has another chart, linked below, that contains US wide data and, shocker, the average daily admission have been 146 per day with a peak of 346 per day.

                      Joe is misreading charts that represent a fraction of the US population as nationwide. Molly cited a WP report that notes on increase in daily admissions to 800 per day. This would represent only a doubling of the prior peak in September which is reasonable.

                      Joe's numbers are unreasonable. He is not a reliable source of information, probably because he reads the charts with preconceived notions instead of in a genuine effort to understand what they say.

                  3. Nova - you need to learn how to read -

                    The is 80-120 per week , not per day. My statement was correct

                    1. Joe,

                      I think you need to check your reading skills. From the CDC website where you got your stats:

                      The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET) conducts population-based surveillance for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in children (persons younger than 18 years) and adults. The current network covers nearly 100 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and four additional states through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IA, MI, OH, and UT). The network represents approximately 10% of US population (~32 million people).

                      While those 100 counties are not necessarily representative of the country at large, we can get a rough estimate by multiplying these weekly numbers by 10 (80/7*10 = 110ish; or 170ish). Or, to be safe, say 7 (80/10*10 = 80; or 120). Therefore, the weekly numbers (for 100 counties) on the page you cited roughly translate to daily numbers for the country as a whole (i.e. 80-120 per day as a conservative estimate and that's before the jump reported to have occurred in the last week).

                      So this is where the problem comes in. You didn't read what the chart you cited actually said. Check your reading ability.

                      Another way to get at the numbers roughly is to check the variously reported weekly pediatric hospitalization rates which have ranged from something like 1 per 100k to 3.5 per 100k (again, roughly from what I've seen for earlier months in 2021) for a country with approximately 73M children. That translates to 70 to 250 pediatric admissions per week.

                      But, why make an estimate? Just go straight to the source. CDC has a chart which actually shows the U.S.-wide daily hospitalizations of 0-17. The peak (7-day running average) has been 346 per day (week ending 4-Sep-2021) and the most recent week (which will undoubtedly be revised up if, as I have previously noted, additional stats come in for at least a month after) is 262 per day (week ending 24-Dec-2021 and the site specifically notes there would be no updates from the 24th through 27th, so this number is clearly low).

                      Multiple methods and sources say your are wrong, Joe. Give it up.

                    2. Citation separate because I often get sent to moderation when I put in a link:


                    3. Nova - you just confirmed my statement

                      Both charts from the CDC show 80-120 per week or 11-20 per day.

                      I was incorrect with the 8 per day instead of the 11-20 per day.

                      However, that is a far cry from the bogus 800 per day from the WP

                    4. Joe,

                      Read the charts again, the chart that include the whole US instead of just 10% of the US.

                      Peak of 346 pediatric admissions per day, most recently 262 per day.

                      I explained how none of the charts show 11-20 per day. You're just wrong. Re-read the above.

                    5. Joe,

                      Just in case you or someone else is still confused.

                      The CDC chart at the link I sent shows a total of 74,743 pediatric admissions from August 1, 2020, to December 24, 2021. That's 74,743 pediatric admissions in 509 days (365 days Aug '20 - Jul '21 + 144 days Aug-Dec '21) which is an average of roughly 146 pediatric admissions per day.

                      There is no way to get 11-20 pediatric hospitalizations per day from any of those charts unless you are misreading them.

                      The average since August 2020 has been 146 pediatric hospitalizations per day. The peak daily count was 346 per day in September 2021. The most recent December numbers are 262 per day, but will be revised upward as more data comes in.

                      Joe, you are wrong. Stop putting out nonsense about single or double digit daily admissions. That's not what the charts say. You should have noticed that multiple sources conflict with your misconception and tipped you off that you were not reading things correctly.

                      Average daily pediatric hospital admissions (Aug 2020 to present): 146.
                      Peak daily pediatric hospital admissions: 346

                      And all reports are the numbers are higher this last week of December than they have previously been.

                      Joe is wrong.

              2. Joe,
                Apparently you don't realize that that chart, which shows roughly 40 admissions per day represents only 24 states and well under half the U.S. population? Read the chart, it tells you what states it includes and which (California, Texas, Florida, New York State, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc.) that it doesn't include.

                Read what the charts actually represent. You're embarrassing yourself by posting this nonsense.

  2. IANAL... why is the father's claim that the mother has the burden of proof that his actions place the children in harm's way? They are not sick contra to her claims. Can someone really make a claim of risk and use an infinite time-line argument to "prove" that the risk is real (on a long enough time line the kids would get sick eventually, no matter how low the chances).

    Other than that... while I am sympathetic to him as a father, he made an agreement. If he can show that his knowledge of the liability protections came about after the agreement then perhaps they could review the agreement as conditions (his knowledge) has changed. Otherwise... he made this bed, he should sleep in it.

    1. The judge is a bottom feeder out of Hofstra Law. Family Court clingon. Knows nothing of law. The agreement did not specify how to address an experimental jab for children with no proven efficacy with known risk factors to young hearts.

      This is where the lawyers prove they have no brain. There is no contract between the parties requiring their children be guinea pigs to Lord Fauci and the clowns who created the virus. Experimental medicine is not a family matter, it does not give the state the right to interfere in a family because the parents are not married. There are plenty of other couples having the same discussions....jews of the family courts should recognize they are just monsters in black robes...jewish monsters.

    2. sparkstable,

      I am assuming your question was why isn't the father's claim correct (there's a word missing in there somewhere). And then you raise a non sequitur of whether some can claim a risk using "an infinite time-line argument". But you did a little bait and switch. The father is claiming that the mother can only show risk by showing harm. ("the father contends that any non-compliance was not "dangerous" because the children did not contract COVID-19.") His is pretty clearly the wrong standard. It's like: "Sure, I was driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.3, but I didn't get in an accident. The kids are unharmed, so my behavior was no dangerous!"

      This doesn't mean the mother automatically win on the dangerousness aspect. But the Court seems entirely reasonable to say, look, you both agreed to follow the NYC and NYS guidelines, so if the father is violating those guidelines, then by his own prior admission, he is not acting in what he previously agreed was the best interests of the children. In other words, the Court seems not to really have to address the dangerousness question at all, but, to the extent the comparison of the father's conduct to the NYC/NYS guidelines is about whether he exposed the children to danger, that is a standard the father previously agreed should apply. The Court needn't, and hasn't as far as I can tell, made any independent assessment as to whether the NYC/NYS guidelines represent the best science or set an objectively reasonable standard of what constitutes danger. Basically, the Court is hoping to punt the whole vaccine issue by first seeing was the father in violation of guidelines to which he agreed and, if so, he's gonna lose on this because he showed he doesn't co-parent in good faith.

      (Just side note: It's a pretty bad look that he resorted to name-calling and insults in a text message exchange about whether he was following guidelines he was supposed to follow. Certainly doesn't make me think he is working to keep a civil and open communication with his co-parent.)

      1. NOVA,
        I agree that the court did the correct thing by reducing the issue to compliance or non-compliance with a previous Court approved agreement between the parties.

    3. If parents make an agreement that their children will wear seatbelts, do you have to wait until they're in a wreck and actually injured to say "Oh, I guess not wearing seatbelts is harmful after all"?

  3. IANAL, but it seems to me that if the father agreed to follow government guidelines, that is the end of it.

    1. I agree.
      He doesn't really have a leg to stand on. Besides his reason for opposing vaccination-government indemnification- is nonsense.
      Either he obeys the agreement approved by the Court or he loses his share of custody.

      1. I'm rooting for loss of custody, and for the child to overcome having such a loser for a father.

      2. And he resorts to insults and name-calling when he is challenged for not doing what he said he would do. Happily, it looks like he'll get his just desserts here.

  4. Governmental guidelines, promises, casualty tallies, and proof of efficacies have waffled, self-contradicted, and changed over time, eliciting no confidence in the much trumpeted, now somewhat discredited science of experimental injected nanotech, graphene hydroxide, and gene modifying "therapies" to combat a coronavirus of very little existential consequence to most people, especially to children and young adults.

    The injected "therapy", now called a "vaccine" but one that cannot impede viral contraction or transmission and whose ingredients are not divulged to the public, has an unconscionably high number of casualties associated with its administration, so far, in the short term. The longer stretch of adverse effects is unknowable at this point.

    One has to pity the parent placed in contractual forced submission to unreliable and ever-changing governmental pronouncements and edicts and to an ex-spouse's whims and will and, apparently, hysteria over a coronavirus and official hyperbole, as concerns their children.

    These days it may be best not to marry, to procreate, or to divorce when children or involved, just as government is exercising unreasonable and unhealthy control over everyone's bodies for, perhaps, pharma largesse, economic resetting, or for globalist eugenic purposes.

    1. I don't think less then two dozen deaths due to vaccines is an unconscionably high number of casualties. But 800k Americans dead is.

      1. Lol. Two dozen.

        1. That does seem like an overestimate, yes.

    2. Miss G
      There is no graphene in the vaccines. Nada.

      1. There are many reports and vids as to the contrary.

        Show us the official analyses upon which you're basing your iron-clad analysis. Do you have access to a complete listing of the experimental shot ingredients and could you share?

        1. There are reports and vids saying that there is a massive conspiracy to molest children in the basement of a pizza parlor that doesn't have a basement. Only stupid people believe them, though.

          There is no graphene. The "casualties" you cite are made up. It does not modify genes. The "very little consequence" has millions of people dead worldwide.

        2. Those reports are LIES.
          Understand that. Lies.
          Graphene could not even hold its physical integrity in the manufacturing and packaging process.

    3. "The injected "therapy", now called a "vaccine" but one that cannot impede viral contraction or transmission and whose ingredients are not divulged to the public, has an unconscionably high number of casualties associated with its administration, so far, in the short term. "
      Sorry, Miss G, but your rationale is way off the wall. The vaccines-any of them-are not therapy.
      The dad made his bed; he has to lie in it.

      1. "Sorry, Miss G, but your rationale is way off the wall. The vaccines-any of them-are not therapy.
        The dad made his bed; he has to lie in it."

        Don Nico, what kind of creepy and disordered logic or threat is this?

        1. It's the logic of a contract.

          1. wolf, he is talking about the graphene lie.
            BTW, some other idiots claim that the vaccines contain quantum dots

    4. I agree fully with you, Miss Greenparker. You're talking about abortion, right?

      1. If there are any abortions, they are the claims that the vaccines are gene therapy, contain graphene, or contain quantum dots

  5. Here is another family court judge trying to micro-manage personal decisions. His biggest concern appears to be blocking the kids from seeing how the judge is infringing on parental rights.

    1. No, the parents are trying to get the judge to micro manager their joint custody arrangement. It sounds to me like the judge just wants these parents to go away and leave him out of it.

      1. Exactly this. The judge didn't ask for this, the parents asked him to make the choice for them. Admirably, in my opinion, the judge actually said, I'm not going to make the choice, but I will hold you to your prior agreement and, if one of you broke it, then the other gets to be the decider on this. Not a bad Solomonic cutting of the Gordian not.

    2. Nonsense Roger. The court is enforcing a previous Court sanctioned agreement between the parties. Period. Dad loses.

  6. If I were the mom I would get the kids vaccinated and let the dad go pound sand. He already violated the agreement.

    1. Lucky for those children, they have at least one parent who would advocate they not be jabbed with an experimental "nanotech, graphene oxide, and gene therapy" that appears to be associated with numerous casualties as listed on VAERS.

      1. ""nanotech, graphene oxide, and gene therapy" "
        To put it bluntly, these are gross lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.

        1. OK, Don Nico, please list the ingredients in the different experimental shots that have been protected from public viewing, thus far, and for a number of years, apparently. at least for Pfizer.

          1. You're the one claiming it contains graphene oxide. It ought to be on you to cite evidence to support this claim.

            1. That link literally does not say anything about graphene oxide.

              1. "That link literally does not say anything about graphene oxide."

                Which is Matthew's point. Graphene oxide isn't in the vaccine. Miss G needs to get back on her rocker and stop worrying about graphene.

                1. She also claimed that the ingredients in the covid vaccines were being hidden from the public.

                  Oh look, the CDC has the ingredients posted on a public web page!

                  1. Thank you, Matthew, for this injection of sanity into a pretty nutty subthread.

              2. Miss G asked for a list of the ingredients in the vaccines. That link has a list of ingredients for all of the COVID vaccines approved in the US.

                1. Thanks, Matthew. Best wishes.

        2. They are indeed lies. You're really showing your ass here, Miss.

          1. Maybe Best Buy wouldn't take her coupons.

            1. Thread-winner.

      2. I'm not sure how to put this gently, but you are deeply stupid. VAERS doesn't do what you think it does.

    2. OMG, dad violated an agreement! Take the kids away, put dad in jail, bring down the hammer of the rabbinical court on the goy.

      1. Dad violated the agreement on a specific point about managing Covid risk, so now maybe mom gets to make the decision on covid risk. This is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming because the judge specifically said, this won't affect the co-parenting on other medical decisions. Just this one. The one the father agreed to follow guidelines then didn't. What more appropriate consequence for his breach of a co-parenting agreement would you impose? Or are there no consequences for being an ass when co-parenting?

  7. The kids have Covid, the matter is moot. Tempest in a tea pot. Communist family court of the jewish communism will make kids mere creatures of the state. The judge is a jew.

    1. if the kids already have covid then it is less of a reason to get vaxed. The risk of adverse consequence is already extremely low, having natural immunity makes the additional risk even lower than extremely low.

      1. Joe,
        It doesn't matter. This is an issue of legalities not immunology.

        1. Don Nico
          December.26.2021 at 12:02 am
          Flag Comment Mute User
          It doesn't matter. This is an issue of legalities not immunology."

          I concur - the legal issue is that the agreement requires compliance with the NTYS & NYC guidelines. The problem is the guidelines are not well supported by either good science or a rational assessment of the risks and benefits for that age group. Adults over age of 40 ( and those with health issues) should absolutely get vaxed and boostered. Adults age 20-40 probably should get vaxed, especially those with health issues. Individuals younger than 20 shouldnt get vaxed unless they have health issues.

  8. "He contends, in effect, that the mother's standard of proof must be that he jeopardized the children's health by any non-compliance...."

    Doesn't mom win, even under father's suggested standard? If I'm a father who says, "I don't believe in seat belts, and I'm not gonna make my kids wear them." (or a similar refusal to give the kids helmets while riding on the back of dad's motorcycle), then I think most courts would conclude: Dad, you are jeopardizing the health of your kids. EVEN THOUGH both you and your ex agree that, to this point, you've never been in a car/bike accident and the kids have suffered zero injuries due to your refusal to protect your kids.

    There is no dispute that the kids are at ongoing increased risk of catching Covid. Now, it's just a matter of weighing whether or not the numbers are sufficient . . . which I admit is a squishy standard, and unfortunately would vary from judge-to-judge, in close cases.

    1. Those children in a divorce contest are at increased risk of catching Covid or a cold?

      Even the skewed official stats of our beast system show that children are at next to no risk of succumbing to Covid as a mild infection or especially as a more serious respiratory illness.

      Next to none.

      1. at least someone recognizes and evaluates based on a reality based assessment of the actual risk

        1. These comments are funny because all three of you obviously didn’t read to the end. The 10 year old tested positive in mid-December.

          1. if the 10 year old tested positive, then the vaccine additional benefit is super tiny,

        2. You citing Miss Graphene as a rational evaluator of reality-based facts? Come on Joe. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still an irrational nut.

      2. Miss G,
        You make a deal. You get the judge to sanction the deal. You made your bed. You lie in it. It is all that simple.

    2. santamonica811
      December.24.2021 at 6:39 pm
      "There is no dispute that the kids are at ongoing increased risk of catching Covid."

      Yes - there is an ongoing risk - but that risk of adverse consequences for a healthy child is damn near zero.

      1. The reports are very much that this is not necessarily so re the omicron variant. Whatever it is, it isn't "damn near zero." Hospitalization rate for omicron may be as high as 3.64 per 100k. Just fyi, pediatric deaths from cancer were 1.9 per 100k. So, the chance of being hospitalized from covid were about twice the chance of dying from cancer. While certainly the risk of dying from childhood cancer is pretty low, I don't think it is at all fair to say it's "damn near zero." (And, of course, the risk of hospitalization is not the same as risk of death. My only point here is that the numbers aren't tiny or, at least, they aren't necessarily tiny depending on how bad you view having your child hospitalized is.)

      2. I suppose the child could spread the virus to others who's risk of adverse consequences is higher. Perhaps that is why NY state health guidelines call for vaccination.

  9. It's much better than a dispute over religion because if the judge needs to find facts, there is an objective truth out there and the parties agreed to follow it no matter how stupid it might be.

  10. John F. Carr
    December.24.2021 at 8:00 pm
    Flag Comment Mute User
    "It's much better than a dispute over religion because if the judge needs to find facts, there is an objective truth out there and the parties agreed to follow it no matter how stupid it might be."

    Except for the fact that the NYs & nyc covid guidelines - for children masking and vaccines are very poorly supported by the actual science

    1. I don't think this blog is for you, joe_dallas. If you're going to flag every comment you dislike. You'd be much happier on Newsmax where uncritical thinking flows

      1. Hobie - I comment because some many commentators have allowed themselves to swayed by irrational assessment of the risks and the associated unsupported belief in ineffective mitigation protocols.

        The only mitigation protocol that is working is vaccinations for adults over age 40-45 and others with health issues.

        Even then the effectiveness drops significantly after approximately 6 months

      2. Hobie - I is fairly well known. , at least by those who have stayed current on the subject matter, that backed for children have very little, if any benefit

        1. IANAL but it seems to me that the benefits or risks of vaccines, etc. are irrelevant to the legal issue, which is whether the father is complying with the agreement he made with the mother and, if not, whether they can co-parent respectfully with one another.

          1. What an absurd stance. The science says that the father is harming the children because he is an abusive parent. His 'beliefs' are not relevant. He is an unfit parent. It is incumbent on the courts to protect the children from him.

            1. Davedave
              December.25.2021 at 3:57 am
              Flag Comment Mute User
              "What an absurd stance. The science says that the father is harming the children because he is an abusive parent"

              The science doesnt say any such thing

          2. It is both a legal issue and a health issue.
            I agree that he should abide by the divorce/custody agreement. The problem is the NYC & NYS covid guidelines for the children are not based on good quality science. They are based on fear

          3. wolfefan
            December.24.2021 at 11:44 pm
            Flag Comment Mute User
            "IANAL but it seems to me that the benefits or risks of vaccines, etc. are irrelevant to the legal issue"

            concur - exempt the nys and nyc guidance is not based on good science.

    2. Joe,

      This blog may not be for you. John didn't say the NY guidelines were based on objectively true, easily interpretable facts. I think his point was that the guidelines themselves are objective, verifiable facts (i.e., they are written down).

      The "even if stupid" should have tipped you off that John didn't necessarily agree with the guidelines. He was just noting that the parties agreed to follow the guidelines even if, as you seem to think, the guidelines are "stupid."

      Do try to keep up.

    3. "Except for the fact that ..."
      None of that matters.
      Dad loses.

  11. Anti-vaxxers are not fit parents. End of analysis.

    1. Captcrisis
      You really need to current with the science

      1. The science is that antivaxxers are child abusers, end of story.

        1. Davedave
          December.25.2021 at 3:56 am
          Flag Comment Mute User
          The science is that antivaxxers are child abusers, end of story.

          No the actual science - the data is pretty clear that the risk of adverse consequences from covid is extremely low (with the rare exception for children with health problems) .

          1. 1 out of every 400 Americans is now dead from Covid. That of course does not count the much greater numbers who got very sick and now have "long Covid".

            1. P.S. True story -- a few minutes ago I got a call from my cousin. She and her family can't come to our house for Christmas dinner because she has Covid. She's a teacher and presumes she caught it there. She has a bad cold and flu-like symptoms.

              1. Just to make a full disclosure point about recent COVID-19 trends.
                Only Dec. 24 the Seattle Times wrote "Denmark sees initial signs that dire omicron surge can be avoided "
                In fact that comment is either very poor reporting or a LIE.
                Note the quote fro the ST “It’s too early to relax, but it’s encouraging that we are not following the worst-case scenario,” said Tyra Grove Krause, the chief epidemiologist at Denmark’s State Serum Institute."

                Denmark, which has among the highest vaccination rates has seem the combination of a surge in breakthrough cases and Omicron cases. That despite the fact that it launched a massive booster shot campaign reaching 25% of population with boosters. The booster campaign has done nothing the blunt the surge in daily new cases which have reached over 1200 per million per day. That level is up from 50 per million.

            2. "does not count the much greater numbers "
              Very interesting.
              Care to share the source? I should track long COVID-19 in my work.

              1. I wouldn't bother. I've seen the list of symptoms for so call "long covid". It's virtually identical to the list of symptoms for Gulf War Syndrome.

                On criticism I recall seeing at the time of the whole Gulf War Syndrome was that those symptoms are reported idiopathically(no identifiable medical cause) by the general population at approximately the same rate as they were being reported by Gulf War vets.

                I'd love to see a comparison of the frequency of those symptoms between the general population and former covid patients.

                1. Very interesting point Matthew.
                  But there have been cases of long lingering symptoms taht are at least professionally incapacitated. My impression has been that these are relatively uncommon. If one had ventilation in hspital, the long range side effects certainly exist but that is a different treatment dependent effect

                  1. Look at the list of "long covid" symptoms. Most of them have no rational tie to COVID or any other respiratory illness. Even if former covid patients are reporting those symptoms, there is no justifiable basis for saying covid is the cause.

    2. That is an equally meaningless comment, Cap.

  12. "The parties share join custody of their daughters—8 and 10 years old—and have diametrically opposed opinions about whether the children should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The mother-defendant filed an emergency application seeking, inter alia, the authority to vaccinat[e] the children."

    Dear sweet sodding Santa. The father demonstrates by his stance that he is unfit to parent. Remove custody, remove access, jail him for reckless endangerment of the children. If he's good, he'll be out of jail by the time the kids are adults and can decide whether they want to see their evil nutcase dad again.

    Really, this one doesn't need judges to rule on it. It requires 'concerned citizens' to give the abusive father a good kicking. If you know your neighbour is an abusive scumbag, do you just stand by?

    "No one controls the music, Mr. Pretty - you know that. It just turns up when people have had enough. No one knows where it starts. People look around, and catch on another's eye, and give each other a little nod, and other people see that. Other people catch their eye and so, very slowly, the music starts and somebody picks up a spoon and bangs it on a plate, and then somebody else bangs a jug on the table and boots starts to stamp on the floor, louder and louder. It is the sound of anger, it is the sound of people who have had enough. Do you want to face the music?”

  13. Being divorced with young kids really seems like a lot of fun. I'm sorry missed it.

    1. Me too. What a shame.

  14. Does this White, male, right-wing blog generate lethally reckless, profoundly ignorant, disingenuous, science-disdaining, virus-flouting, conservative Republicans -- or merely attract them?

Please to post comments