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

[Dashinka 24,687]

1 hour ago, elmcitymaven said:

Eh, the judge did the right thing here by vacating his order, and the father is doing what he has a right to do -- appeal the decision to vacate the order. (Yes, you can appeal the vacation of an order.) 

 

As to whether a judge has a right to ask whether a parent is vaccinated: (1) it's not covered by HIPAA; (2) a judge can absolutely ask this and it's not overreach (in my opinion) to ask, though conditioning access to a child could be; (3) judges in family court, as I mentioned before, have a lot more leeway than in other civil courtrooms. You're not going to hear a judge handling a contract dispute condition a ruling on vaccination status.

 

The equity/law divide is weird, and this is completely in his purview. For example, a family judge would be in his rights to ask if there are firearms in a home, and then ask how those firearms are secured. Choosing to restrict a child from visiting its parent in that home could be conditioned on the response, no problem, as a matter of safety, depending on how the firearms are stored, any domestic violence history of the parent with the firearm, etc. Guns and vaccines are maybe not apples and oranges, perhaps more like grapefruit and oranges, but there is a similar rationale underpinning asking about both: is it in the best interests of the child that the parent take X action? 

 

The problem is that a judge is not a doctor, and while there is an argument to be made that a parent who is unvaccinated and taking their unvaccinated child into situations where COVID exposure is highly (maybe even moderately) likely could be held not to be acting in the best interests of the child, this was too far. Are there other methods of achieving similar outcomes? I could think of several which respect both child and parent, including regular testing, restrictions on where the child may be brought and whom the child may visit, masking, etc. These are lower burdens which can achieve a similar outcome.

 

The father is doing what he's doing because he's got a chance to have a jab at his ex, in my opinion. He's very unlikely to prevail.

 

Also, not sure why the word "corrupt" is being bandied about here in relation to this judge. He's got a hobbyhorse and he's going hell for leather, but it's his courtroom, his fiefdom, his rules. That's kind of how it is. I seriously doubt he'll make a ruling like this again. Judges hate getting overturned (hence his vacating his own order ASAP).

 

Judges need more accountability.

[TBoneTX 45,778]

6 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Judges need more accountability.

But then they would be accountants!

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

9 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Eh, the judge did the right thing here by vacating his order, and the father is doing what he has a right to do -- appeal the decision to vacate the order. (Yes, you can appeal the vacation of an order.) 

 

As to whether a judge has a right to ask whether a parent is vaccinated: (1) it's not covered by HIPAA; (2) a judge can absolutely ask this and it's not overreach (in my opinion) to ask, though conditioning access to a child could be; (3) judges in family court, as I mentioned before, have a lot more leeway than in other civil courtrooms. You're not going to hear a judge handling a contract dispute condition a ruling on vaccination status.

 

The equity/law divide is weird, and this is completely in his purview. For example, a family judge would be in his rights to ask if there are firearms in a home, and then ask how those firearms are secured. Choosing to restrict a child from visiting its parent in that home could be conditioned on the response, no problem, as a matter of safety, depending on how the firearms are stored, any domestic violence history of the parent with the firearm, etc. Guns and vaccines are maybe not apples and oranges, perhaps more like grapefruit and oranges, but there is a similar rationale underpinning asking about both: is it in the best interests of the child that the parent take X action? 

 

The problem is that a judge is not a doctor, and while there is an argument to be made that a parent who is unvaccinated and taking their unvaccinated child into situations where COVID exposure is highly (maybe even moderately) likely could be held not to be acting in the best interests of the child, this was too far. Are there other methods of achieving similar outcomes? I could think of several which respect both child and parent, including regular testing, restrictions on where the child may be brought and whom the child may visit, masking, etc. These are lower burdens which can achieve a similar outcome.

 

The father is doing what he's doing because he's got a chance to have a jab at his ex, in my opinion. He's very unlikely to prevail.

 

Also, not sure why the word "corrupt" is being bandied about here in relation to this judge. He's got a hobbyhorse and he's going hell for leather, but it's his courtroom, his fiefdom, his rules. That's kind of how it is. I seriously doubt he'll make a ruling like this again. Judges hate getting overturned (hence his vacating his own order ASAP).

 

Sure the judge can ask.  And the answer SHOULD be... that's none of your business.  There is no law that requires a covid vaccine.

Vaccination status has ZERO place in family matters, period.

Edited September 1, 2021 by LIBrty4all