Vaccine Status and Child Custody Decisions in Family Law

Anyone who is a parent of a school age child knows that to enroll the child in school requires a doctor’s visit got the proper vaccines.

There are good reasons for this as children are notorious for getting sick after exposure to another child at school who is sick. The vaccines, though, tend to be for the more serious diseases that the schools aim to keep the kids safe from.

This isn’t what I’m going to talk about today though. I’m going to talk about the parents, their vaccine Status, and the courts.

First and foremost i am not against vaccines, I want to make that clear. That being said, I am against vaccines that don’t make sense to me, although maybe a certain vaccine does make sense to another person.

I’ll give you an example. The flu shot. I have never gotten one. I can’t tell you the last time I got the flu. I’m relatively healthy, and for me, it’s not an issue. Tetnus shot. I have had my fair share of those after stepping on a nail. For me, to avoid getting tetnus, I’ll take that vaccine. Tetnus is a very scary disease and I’ll happily take a shot to prevent myself from getting it.

I’m not a doctor and I’m not a scientist. I know my knowledge about things is limited. So I’ll use common sense.

If my car breaks down t go to a mechanic.

If I need to get my dog fixed I take him to a vet.

If my toilet won’t flush I’ll call a plumber.

if I am concerned about catching a virus I’ll talk to my doctor.

if j want to apply for a building permit I’ll contact the county government office.

I don’t get my mechanic to perform surgery on my dog.

so why would I entrust my health to a family court judge? I wouldn’t.

That’s my doctor’s job.

So why are family court judges making child custody decisions based on the vaccination status of the patent? Yes, They are. I don’t believe that’s right at all. That’s just my opinion.

There’s no worse predicament I could imagine in these times then to be involved in a bitter custody dispute with a divorcing spouse whose beliefs differ from mine as to the covid vaccine.

As if going through a divorce isn’t bad enough, to also be fighting over custody I know if a nightmare. To hash all that out AND use the jab as a weapon in the family court systems is downright atrocious. That would be horrific.

Honestly, I don’t know what I would do in that situation, so let’s discuss it. In a perfect world the parents would not leave the date of their family up to a stranger who doesn’t know the children. In as perfect world the parents would keep things amicable for the child. But we don’t live in as perfect world.

For the courts to decide custody and access to a child over the jab? Really? Yes, it’s happening. All over. And I suspect it is going to keep happening and will increasingly become an area of dispute in the family law arena.

Constitutional Rights Lawyers and family lawyers may just need to sit down for a very real discussion on how this should be handled.

Its not just coming…

It’s here.

and it’s scary.

In Chicago a judge took custody of an 11 year old boy away from his mother after the parents appeared in a child support matter, but were shocked when the judge abruptly asked about the vaccination status of each parent. The father was vaccinated, the mother was not, and upon admitting that to the judge, had custody taken away! Mind you this was a child support hearing but a child custody hearing. Nobody saw that coming. If course the mother appealed and has the decision reversed. Rightfully. Still, one must wonder why that judge did that to those parents? Are they the only ones? Probably not.

Removing a child from a parent is horrible traumatic. So traumatic in fact that studies have shown that children who remained in the care of their natural parents over Foster homes even in cases where abuse occurred, still fared better as adults. So even though that case was overturned, what damage did that court decision cause, and why? Custody wasn’t even in dispute.

Another judge in New York suspended parental visits for an unvaccinated father unless he got the shots or agreed to regular coronavirus testing. The vaccination status was compared to second hand smoke. Parents who smoke have been court ordered to not smoke inside in the presence of their child. In some states it’s illegal to smile in the car with a child. Second hand smoke can be dangerous and cause health problems, that’s been proven over decades.

The coronavirus vaccine, however, doesn’t prevent you from getting it, nor does it prevent you from spreading it, so being vaccinated doesn’t mean you aren’t going to give it to your child. At best it would prevent you from getting deathly ill from it if you do get it. At worse, it would give you a false sense of security if you are not well informed. After all, many people, myself included, believed that by being vaccinated it means you’re safe from the disease. Like tetnus. So a person who doesn’t ask questions, or client research it fully, or talk to their trusted doctor, to learn that in the case of covid, the vaccine doesn’t prevent the catching of or spreading of the disease, and believes that they are vaccinated so they won’t get it, could very easily put that child at risk even more. It’s a tricky subject.

We’ve just learned of this disease. we’ve just had this pandemic hit in the last two years, and information has been changing and misleading and updated over and over again. It’s been politicized and weaponized. It’s become a tool for lockdowns and mandates that differ depending on where you live. It’s confusing and it’s tiring to try to figure out whose right and whose wrong.

We’ve heard Dr Fauci flip flop on his stance and advise when he hasn’t been a practicing physician with any real patients in over 25 years.

We’ve been lied to about it’s origin. First it was a wet market in Wuhan, and later it was confirmed to come from a lab near the Wuhan market.

We’ve seen Joe Rogan get censored for talking about ivermectin as what cured him.

So how can a judge justify the traumatic removal of a child from a parent based on a vaccination status for a disease we know little to nothing about, that doesn’t prevent it or the spread of it, to children, who are not the ones dying from it…?

The constitutional rights of a parent to raise their family free of government interference is basic. Barring a childs doctor testifying that their child patient is at risk specifically from an unvaccinated parent, for some reason, I cannot understand how a medical decision can be made by a judge in a family court for an adult.

i haven’t even touched on the adverse effects of the vaccine either. Those are yet to be known in it’s entirety.

what’s your thoughts on the matter?

I would love to hear them in the comments.

Stay safe and healthy and most of all, stay informed. Ask questions and use common sense. Godspeed.


  1. They will use any reason to take kids. They need to take more kids than the year prior to keep the level of funding. They will destroy evidence and create new paperwork to lie about a parent to take custody (That’s what I had to go through), and family court is the only court where heresay is admissible. I’m with you on the vax stance as well. Too early. My father has been suffering from his shot for a year now.

    1. Absolutely you said it, too early…. I understand the parents desire to keep their kids safe and healthy, without a doubt. That being said, though, with all the vaccines available, never, in the history of vaccines, have they ever had a vaccine that, once administered, you could still get and pass the disease on, that you still had to wear a mask and maintain distance, and that the government has incentivized receiving it by offering payments or gift cards. Something about this one stinks. To go out and get a shot put in your children’s arms that’s proving to be extremely risky and of a new type- MRNA, before trials are complete and long term monitoring has been done, would, to me, be reckless, at best. Godspeed. And stay healthy and safe.

Leave a Reply

Verified by MonsterInsights