![]() ![]() ![]() He claimed that he supported vaccinations and that the mother’s objections were based on conspiracy theories rather than religion and, in fact, the mother is an Atheist. The father cross-moved for sole decision making authority on medical decisions for Adele or for a plenary (evidentiary) hearing on the issue. Meanwhile, the day before Adele’s appointment with her pediatrician, the mother filed a Motion seeking sole custody of Adele and restraining the father from having further vaccines administered to Adele, claiming that the parties agreed to not vaccinate Adele and previously submitted religious exemption letters to Adele’s schools. A few days later, Adele developed a rash that her pediatrician diagnosed as being caused by something she touched – i.e.: unrelated to the vaccine. Upon their return, the father, without pre- or post-disclosure to the mother, brought Adele for the MMR vaccine. He made her mother aware of the vaccinations.Ī few weeks later, the father unsuccessfully filed an emergent application seeking to prevent the mother from traveling with Adele to Bulgaria, claiming that she could not go because she did not have all of her vaccinations, which was denied as Adele had vacationed in Bulgaria before without vaccinations. ”ĭuring the trial discussed below, the mother testified that the parties did not reference vaccinations in their agreement because they agreed to not vaccinate Adele and the father had prepared the above letters to the schools, for which she did not know the source of the language.įollowing their divorce, Adele stepped on a rusty nail while with her father, who then brought her to the hospital where she was given a diptheria, tetanus and DTap vaccination. The Appellate Division found particular importance in the following language: they “.further agree that their daughter’s best interest is paramount” and they “.shall conduct themselves in a manner that shall be best for the interest, welfare, and happiness of. Rather, with pretty form language, they agreed to share joint legal custody of their child with neither parent designated as the Parent of Primary Residence. Our personal religious beliefs include our obedience to God’s law, the Holy Bible, and we believe that we are responsible before God for the life and safety of our child, created by God.ĭespite their strong letters pre- and post-divorce regarding vaccinations, the parties did not include language in their Marital Settlement Agreement (divorce agreement) about whether to vaccinate Adele and/or religious beliefs concerning Adele. Our faith will not allow us to question our Lord and God, nor challenge His divine power. To inject into our child any substance which would alter the state into which she was born would be to criticize our Lord and question His divine omnipotence. Our family’s religious beliefs prohibit the injection of foreign substances into our bodies. In June 2015, the parties submitted a letter to Adele’s pre-school asking that she be exempt from the vaccination requirement because of their religious beliefs in a strongly worded letter that quoted the Bible, and they submitted a similar letter post-divorce in August 2018 to Adele’s kindergarten, The initial letter, which is similar to the Kindergarten letter, said: During their marriage, they did not have Adele vaccinated. The parties married in 2005, had one child (Adele) born in 2013, separated in September 2015 and divorced in 2018. Had she been credible, would there be a different result? The decision is a long one, so bear with me. Given that the mother was not a credible witness with respect to her religious beliefs, or really about much of anything, her religion/freedom of religion arguments failed. In similar fashion to previous blogs that I have authored, credibility was key. ![]() The defendant/mother, who opposed vaccinations, argued that the best interests standard should not have been applied because it does not outweigh her fundamental right to freedom of religion, in addition to other arguments. A.A., the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision awarding the plaintiff/father, in favor of vaccinations, sole authority to make vaccination decisions for the minor child, based largely on the best interests standard. Although not COVID-19 related, it’s pretty timely that an unpublished (non-precedential) decision was just issued regarding divorced parents who disputed whether their child should be vaccinated.īriefly, in the matter of M.A. Vaccinations will likely become a hot topic in matters of divorced or separated parents in a post-pandemic world with vaccines now available to children ages 12 and up, and possible younger children in the future. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |