NYC Judge Blocks Unvaccinated Father From Seeing Daughter: ‘Not In The Child’s Best Interests’

[Reformed1689]

This is misinformation.

Not all states grant dual custody (with a primary). The father, according to the report, had visitation rights. Visitation rights is not joint custody.

Shame on the father for caring so little about the life his own child.

This post is misinformation because @Revmitchell said nothing about joint custody.

 

[Revmitchell]

This post is misinformation because @Revmitchell said nothing about joint custody.

I’ve dealt with plenty of parents and custody issues. Use of the word visitation in no way implies a lack of equal custody. It’s an absurd claim. Only those with an agenda would make such assumptions

 

[JonC]

I’ve dealt with plenty of parents and custody issues. Use of the word visitation in no way implies a lack of equal custody. It’s an absurd claim. Only those with an agenda would make such assumptions

Apparently you are misinformed.

Whoever has legal custody has the right to make important decisions about a child's care such as medical care or religious upbringing. If the Judge gives joint legal custody, the parents make major decisions about the child together. It doesn't matter which parent the child lives with; both parents must agree on the decisions together. If the Judge gives one parent sole legal custody, only one parent has the right to make major decisions for the child.

Custody gives responsibility for the child's care and how the child is brought up to one or both of the child's parents or to someone else.

Visitation is ordered when one parent has sole custody so that the parent who doesn't have custody has visits with the child.


About Custody | NY CourtHelp

 

[JonC]

Bottom line is the mother had ever right to protect her child from the unnecessary risk the father ignored.

The father has every right to refuse a vacvine, but other people should not pay for his denial of medical science.

 

[canadyjd]

Misinformation…z

Natural immunity has also been proven much less effective in regards to varients (the vacvine is effective due to the defence against a protein while vovid survivers are not adequatly protected against varients other than the one they to which they were exposed).

The overwhelming majority of people survive this virus at 99.9+% rate. Children do far better than adults. The only group that is very at risk is the elderly with pre-existing conditions: which survive at 95%. That is what the science reveals.

The vaccines offer protection, at best, at about 95%. That is what the science says.

Natural immunity offers better protection for every group except the elderly and/or those with compromised immune systems.

To state those with natural immunity “are not adequately protected against variants” is another misleading statement. There immunity is still above 99%.

Your statement about vaccines offering better protection than natural immunity against the delta variant is only true for the very small population among both recovered and those vaccinated who are reinfected and hospitalized.

You are applying to the entire population a study that targeted a very narrow subset of people in both groups, recovered and vaccinated, that were reinfected and hospitalized.

That is misleading. That is misinformation

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Bottom line is the mother had ever right to protect her child from the unnecessary risk the father ignored.

The father has every right to refuse a vacvine, but other people should not pay for his denial of medical science.

The child has no risk from the father if there is no preexisting condition. That is the science.

No one is at risk from this man. The science says he is protected at 99.9+%, and the vaccine offers 95.% protection.

The big government anti science crowd are using misinformation to scare people into compliance.

Just follow the science and get out of people’s lives.

peace to you.

 

[JonC]

The overwhelming majority of people survive this virus at 99.9+% rate. Children do far better than adults. The only group that is very at risk is the elderly with pre-existing conditions: which survive at 95%. That is what the science reveals.

The vaccines offer protection, at best, at about 95%. That is what the science says.

Natural immunity offers better protection for every group except the elderly and/or those with compromised immune systems.

To state those with natural immunity “are not adequately protected against variants” is another misleading statement. There immunity is still above 99%.

Your statement about vaccines offering better protection than natural immunity against the delta variant is only true for the very small population among both recovered and those vaccinated who are reinfected and hospitalized.

You are applying to the entire population a study that targeted a very narrow subset of people in both groups, recovered and vaccinated, that were reinfected and hospitalized.

That is misleading. That is misinformation

peace to you

No. I never said the majority does nor survive covid. I am saying you are wrong to dismiss the 4,500,000+ people who died of covid.

We have effective vacvines that have been proven to protect against covid, hospitalizations, and death.

The vaccines carry a risk (less than 0.0021% risk). But this is far less than the .5% chance of dying of covid.

 

[JonC]

The child has no risk from the father if there is no preexisting condition. That is the science.

No one is at risk from this man. The science says he is protected at 99.9+%, and the vaccine offers 95.% protection.

The big government anti science crowd are using misinformation to scare people into compliance.

Just follow the science and get out of people’s lives.

peace to you.

Misinformation.

Science has shown covid can be deadly regardless of preexisting conditions.

My community has lost 4 children to covid. 1 had preexisting conditions, 3 did not.

Stop dismissing the lives of these children.

 

[JonC]

And it does not matter.

The mother had custody - subjecting her child to a preventable risk is her decision.

 

[Revmitchell]

Misinformation. Fathers aren’t without parental rights. No matter how hyper vax people want them to be to support an evil decision.

 

[canadyjd]

Misinformation.

Science has shown covid can be deadly regardless of preexisting conditions.

My community has lost 4 children to covid. 1 had preexisting conditions, 3 did not.

Stop dismissing the lives of these children.

Your community does not represent the risk to children in this country or around the world.

More misinformation, trying to scare people.

Science has shown children have near perfect immunity to this virus. The father does not put this child at risk.

I can see you and I will talk past each other and accomplish nothing. I’ll leave you to your crusade.

Thanks for the conversation.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Misinformation. Fathers aren’t without parental rights. No matter how hyper vax people want them to be to support an evil decision.

Misinformation. @Revmitchell is arguing against the New York government website. First denying science, not denying law.


Whoever has legal custody has the right to make important decisions about a child's care such as medical care or religious upbringing. If the Judge gives joint legal custody, the parents make major decisions about the child together. It doesn't matter which parent the child lives with; both parents must agree on the decisions together. If the Judge gives one parent sole legal custody, only one parent has the right to make major decisions for the child.

Custody gives responsibility for the child's care and how the child is brought up to one or both of the child's parents or to someone else.

Visitation is ordered when one parent has sole custody so that the parent who doesn't have custody has visits with the child.


About Custody | NY CourtHelp