‘I miss my son’: Chicago mother says judge stripped her of parental rights after learning she wasn’t vaccinated against Covid-19

[jg121783 3,917]

Now they are coming for our kids if we don't take their shot. This isn't the first case like this in the US I have heard about either. In one case (I cant remember where) the judge ordered the children be vaccinated even though they aren't old enough for the vaccine.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/533314-mother-parental-rights-vaccination-chicago/

 

"Her attorney, Annette Fernholz, has accused the judge of exceeding his jurisdiction. 

 

“In this case you have a judge, without any matter before him regarding the parenting time with the child deciding, ‘Oh, you’re not vaccinated. You don’t get to see your child until you are vaccinated,’” Fernholz said. She pointed out that the father did not bring up the issue of vaccination or if it could potentially affect visitation rights, meaning that the judge acted on his own."

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

Who needs rights?  Let's all just fall in line and take what they give us!

[jg121783 3,917]

27 minutes ago, LIBrty4all said:

Who needs rights?  Let's all just fall in line and take what they give us!

It's the eugenics movement of the early 1900s all over again.

[Talako 785]

2 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It's the eugenics movement of the early 1900s all over again.

Hyperbole much?

[jg121783 3,917]

4 minutes ago, Talako said:

Hyperbole much?

Forced medication by court order then. Forced medication by court order now.

[TBoneTX 45,537]

Possible violations of HIPAA, Nuremberg Code, Constitutional provisions.

Edited August 29, 2021 by TBoneTX

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

Kinda the same principal of a court ordering the kid of a jehovah witness,  to get life saving blood products 

[Ban Hammer 13,404]

51 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Kinda the same principal of a court ordering the kid of a jehovah witness,  to get life saving blood products 

flawed equivalency.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

12 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Possible violations of HIPAA, Nuremberg Code, Constitutional provisions.

None of those, except possibly as an infringement of the right to a private family life. 

 

Here's the difficult part: judges in family court sit in equity, not law. It's a distinction that is often overlooked because in nearly every jurisdiction, the courts have merged (for the most part). The easiest way to think about it is this: is the remedy you're seeking a legal one (i.e., you can fix the problem with money) or an equitable one (pretty much everything else)? While money can be at issue when it comes to child support, what a family court seeks to do is to do equity between the parties involved. That means considering the positions of the people involved, their relative strengths and weaknesses in power and wealth, and when children are involved, placing their interests above those of the parents'. There is a great deal of discretion afforded a judge sitting in family court and that's a feature, not a bug. 

 

It's hard. I have friends who practice family law and I could not do it. It's heartbreaking, every day, and no one truly wins. Law is not an exact science, and its practitioners are not scientists. In equity, this is brought to the fore because there are depths of emotion involved, whether it's a family heirloom being squabbled over by grandchildren, or whether a child should live with this parent, but not that one. Commercial leases that go wrong may involve people getting very, very angry, but money makes it all better for the most part; you can always go lease another space. I prefer dealing with those emotions.

 

With all that being said, I think this judge's decision is likely to be overturned due to abuse of discretion. While I am fully pro-vaxx, and believe every person should be vaccinated unless medically contraindicated, a judge should condition a parent's access to his or her child on vaccination, particularly in the absence of any state or federal mandate for vaccination. This mother should get vaccinated for her own sake, but if she is willing to take common sense precautions including regular testing, limiting her exposure to environments in which COVID exposure is higher and/or masking up (none of this is difficult), she should have access given that there did not appear to be other health and safety issues.

 

It is likely that the judge believed he was acting in the best interests of the child, and that is what is permissible in family courts, like it or not. However, that discretion is tethered to the rights and interests of the family involved. It was a poor decision, made by humans. That's the system we have, and that's why appeals courts exist.

[Ban Hammer 13,404]

4 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

 and that's a feature, not a bug. 

 

 

in programming, a feature is a bug with senority.

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

I am pro-vaccine too, but I believe everyone should have the choice as to whether or not to stick foreign substances into their body.  

 

Just as I choose to drink, knowing full well it is not healthy for me, but I would NEVER try to force another human to drink.

[Dashinka 24,597]

17 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

None of those, except possibly as an infringement of the right to a private family life. 

 

Here's the difficult part: judges in family court sit in equity, not law. It's a distinction that is often overlooked because in nearly every jurisdiction, the courts have merged (for the most part). The easiest way to think about it is this: is the remedy you're seeking a legal one (i.e., you can fix the problem with money) or an equitable one (pretty much everything else)? While money can be at issue when it comes to child support, what a family court seeks to do is to do equity between the parties involved. That means considering the positions of the people involved, their relative strengths and weaknesses in power and wealth, and when children are involved, placing their interests above those of the parents'. There is a great deal of discretion afforded a judge sitting in family court and that's a feature, not a bug. 

 

It's hard. I have friends who practice family law and I could not do it. It's heartbreaking, every day, and no one truly wins. Law is not an exact science, and its practitioners are not scientists. In equity, this is brought to the fore because there are depths of emotion involved, whether it's a family heirloom being squabbled over by grandchildren, or whether a child should live with this parent, but not that one. Commercial leases that go wrong may involve people getting very, very angry, but money makes it all better for the most part; you can always go lease another space. I prefer dealing with those emotions.

 

With all that being said, I think this judge's decision is likely to be overturned due to abuse of discretion. While I am fully pro-vaxx, and believe every person should be vaccinated unless medically contraindicated, a judge should condition a parent's access to his or her child on vaccination, particularly in the absence of any state or federal mandate for vaccination. This mother should get vaccinated for her own sake, but if she is willing to take common sense precautions including regular testing, limiting her exposure to environments in which COVID exposure is higher and/or masking up (none of this is difficult), she should have access given that there did not appear to be other health and safety issues.

 

It is likely that the judge believed he was acting in the best interests of the child, and that is what is permissible in family courts, like it or not. However, that discretion is tethered to the rights and interests of the family involved. It was a poor decision, made by humans. That's the system we have, and that's why appeals courts exist.

What my question would be is say this mother follows the judge's order and gets the vaccine, ends up with blood clots and dies, would this judge be liable?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

Here is a great idea. We could mandate a micro chip for all citizens, then the voter id thing would not keep the disenfranchised from voting. We could just scan them instead if requiring  an ID

[Dashinka 24,597]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Here is a great idea. We could mandate a micro chip for all citizens, then the voter id thing would not keep the disenfranchised from voting. We could just scan them instead if requiring  an ID

Maybe a tattoo with a barcode on everyone's forehead.

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Here is a great idea. We could mandate a micro chip for all citizens, then the voter id thing would not keep the disenfranchised from voting. We could just scan them instead if requiring  an ID

There is NO REASON in the world for voters to show an ID.  Now if you want to eat in a restaurant, that is quite another story altogether....