A Kelowna mother can get her 11-year-old son vaccinated against COVID-19 despite the wishes of the child’s father, who has been ordered by the courts to not even speak about it with his son.
A decision out of B.C. provincial court published this week demonstrates, not for the first time, how COVID-19 vaccinations have become a divisive and life-changing issue for families.
In this case, the parents of the child had been separated since 2016 and both had guardianship over the boy.
According to Judge Cathie Heinrichs’s Feb. 1 decision, which was published this week, the mother wanted the boy vaccinated and until that happened, she asked to restrict his interactions with his father.
The father is opposed to having the boy vaccinated, believing that the vaccine is too new to know the long-term impacts. Further, he said his son had already developed immunity as a result of recovering from COVID-19 and argued that the risk of harm from the vaccine outweighs the possible benefit he may receive from the vaccine.
All of his arguments were rejected by Heinrichs, who relied on case precedent that has established that during the pandemic, health restrictions have been imposed to control the spread of the virus, which has been deadly for some, and that the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective for use in both children and adults.
Heinrich’s focus was then turned to the ability of each parent to exercise parenting responsibility.
Of evidence noted, Heinrich said the boy’s mother told the court the father uses a fake vaccine passport to get into places, such as the Capital News Centre, that require proof of vaccination. The judge noted the father would not reveal his vaccination status.
The mother also has testified by affidavit that she and her partner have received the double vaccination for COVID-19. Her current partner is a firefighter and is a front-line worker who follows strict COVID-19 protocols.
“One of the concerns in the pandemic, and a continuing concern if this becomes an endemic, is the loss of community service in the event of widespread illness,” Heinrichs said. “Our society is at greater risk if, for example, many of the firefighters are absent from work simultaneously due to COVID-19. (The mother) and her partner have a social responsibility to be as healthy as possible.”
Ultimately, when looking at the two, Heinrichs said she found the mother “more likely to comply with the recommendation by government” and she ordered that the child be vaccinated.
“To expect the parents to co-operate and reach a mutual agreement places (the child) at risk of delay in getting the vaccine,” she said.
In the end, Heinrichs said the mom should get the boy his two COVID-19 shots and booster dose within a recommended timeframe. The father can see the boy again after he gets his first shot, she ruled.
The father was ordered not to talk to his son about COVID-19 or vaccinations. Both parents were ordered not to discuss the court case with their son, other than the verdict, and not to talk about each other negatively in front of the child.
The parties have a trial scheduled for July to determine parenting responsibilities and parenting time. There is no interim order designating parenting responsibility.
Comments