BPDFamily.com

Perhaps you've already heard of cases like this, where one parent tries to change custody due to conflicts blown out of proportion.  In this case, disagreement over either COVID-19 vaccine hesitance or advocacy.  There's always two sides to each story, of course.  What's noteworthy is this judge expounded extensively on this matter and covered all the bases.

Caution: Please post with reasonable discretion, we don't want triggering comments in either direction whether to an extreme for or against.  Let's put due focus on a wise judge's decision process.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1198/2022onsc1198.html

Summary:  Parents divorced and custody settled in 2021.  Older child with father and vaccinated.  Younger two children with mother and after some research she declined to vaccinate them, after all, nearly all children except those immune-compromised or with serious health risks have only minimal to no symptoms.  Besides, these children already had the virus so they already had natural immunity.  Well, father sought full custody claiming she was a bad mother for not vaccinating them.  Sound familiar, hmm?  (That is a growing opinion these days...  "You're a bad person because I think your ideas are bad.")

Well, judge went into great detail.  He noted the father claimed mother was a bad parent but didn't substantiate his claim.  Judge noted mother was not against the concept of vaccination - the kids had prior vaccinations - but upon research she had concerns about this new type of vaccine.  She supplied quotes from prominent medical authorities urging caution such as by the inventor of the mRNA technology used to develop the vaccines, especially for the vast majority of children who typically didn't have a great medical need.

The judge concluded there was no need to change custody and put emphasis on the matter that the mother was not a bad mother.

I was relieved there was someone on the bench in Canada who looked at both sides and gave a well reasoned decision, especially considering how the Canadian PM recently declared an emergency (law designed for war or terrorists), arrested protest truckers and their fuel, trucks and even supporters' bank accounts because they faced vaccine mandates and passports.

Fortunately, the pandemic finally appears to be fading in impact, though most agree it will be endemic for many years to come like colds or flus.  Eventually, whether months or years from now, like Monday morning armchair quarterbacks, there will arise a consensus about which lessons were learned, whether lock-downs, masks, mandates, schools shut down, etc were practical and wise, or not.

In some jurisdictions, a minor can make some medical decisions at age 14 and can maintain privacy from the parents. So this might not be the ruling in other areas should the minors be of age.

Hmm...I don't have a problem with his decision, but I would probably describe the judge as "in need of an editor" instead of "wise." It's about 70% too long and has a whole lot of commentary that has precisely nothing to do with the case or the law. Not sure what his goal was other than to hear himself talk (see himself write?).   

I'm actually impressed at how the judge - who admits at the end that he is vaccinated by his own choice, put his own preferences and perhaps political influence to the side to hear out the case as objectively as possible.

A vaccine hesitant parent isn't necessarily a bad parent. I think investigating bad parenting would need to be looked at far more holistically than that. Regardless of what stance someone has on the vaccine, there's enough conflicting information  out there to be confusing to parents ( and a lot of people ). The judge seemed to show some grace for that situation.

This issue- vaccinated/unvaccinated has been a source of conflict in many other situations but the judge recognized that this, alone, may not be grounds for action in that custody case.