Court Upholds Decision Giving Parent Authority Over Child’s Medical Care Because That Parent Would Immunize the ChildHe has somewhat libertarian views about free speech and guns, but he endorses a family court trying to make a medical decision about vaccination.
The decision seems correct to me, because it is in the child’s best interests.
I posted several comments there.
It is funny how some lawyers think that the court has to intervene in a case like this. A vaccination decision is far less consequential than many other parental decisions.
A reader responds to an argument that vaccines are in the public interest:
Absolutely, but why should the state treat kids in a custody case differently than kids not in a custody case?The mom in this case does seem to have some nutty views, but the court has no business intervening.
Either make vaccines mandatory for all and eliminate all opt outs, or acknowledge the right to an opt out and then don’t discriminate based on that right.
How much of a right to opt out of medical treatments do you have if a family court judge can use that against you to take your kids away?
The same blog reports that the British court has decided that domestic violence includes "shouting" and "denigration of her personality" for the purpose of qualifying for free (welfare) housing.