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

[Revmitchell]

A New York City judge has barred a father from visiting his 3-year-old daughter unless he is vaccinated against COVID-19 or submits to weekly tests.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/nyc-...23DhM9v0acsE7WSVfU_ScBP9VsUYU9nZGjMk_ARMIeri0

 

[JonC]

“Unfortunately, and to my mind, incomprehensibly, a sizable minority, seizing upon misinformation, conspiracy theories, and muddled notions of ‘individual liberty,’ have refused all entreaties to be vaccinated,” argued the high-profile judge"

Right decision. The mother has primary health responsibility for the child. I understand the father believes misinformation, and it is regrettable that he lost visitation rights. But the health of the child needs to come first.

 

[Revmitchell]

This action by the court is evil

 

[Van]

The actual issue of this thread is the government usurping the authority of "risk management" of the governed. Seat belts are mandated to drive on public roads. Now the risk to others that the unvaccinated pose is something government can declare is unlawful because it increases the risk to others. There is no freedom once this becomes the law. You cannot drink because that puts others at risk. How about speaking you mind? Nope because that would risk providing disinformation to others... The communists are coming for you - because if you were eliminated then the risk of over population and climate change would be reduced...

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

This really boils down to who is responsible for a child.

Gov't or Parents.

Too many people believe Gov't is the correct answer.

 

[JonC]

This action by the court is evil

The court is speculation, so you have a point (just like the GOP and DNC can be said to be evil because they are "powers of this world).

But in this case the judge rightly put the life of a child over the perceived rights of a father.

 

[JonC]

This really boils down to who is responsible for a child.

Gov't or Parents.

Too many people believe Gov't is the correct answer.

Almost. The difference is the mother, who had custody, did not want her daughter exposed to a needless risk of covid.

I belueve the mother and child had rights in this matter as well.

It would be different if the judge's decision was against both parents desires.

 

[Salty]

This really boils down to who is responsible for a child.

Gov't or Parents.

Too many people believe Gov't is the correct answer.

But evidently - this is a divorce situation - and the court has given one parent more rights than the other.

 

[canadyjd]

…. I understand the father believes misinformation, and it is regrettable that he lost visitation rights. But the health of the child needs to come first.

The father has recovered from covid and believes he had natural immunity that is better than vaccine.

That position is supported by several medical studies published in professional journals.

So, exactly what “misinformation” does the father believe that justified loosing visitation with his daughter?

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

The father has recovered from covid and believes he had natural immunity that is better than vaccine.

That position is supported by several medical studies published in professional journals.

So, exactly what “misinformation” does the father believe that justified loosing visitation with his daughter?

peace to you

that judge should lose his job this extremism is beyond belief. It’s surreal

 

[just-want-peace]

CAMEL --- NOSE --- TENT!
Where is the line going to be tomorrow?????????
Judges are not God - regardless of their esteem of self (some, not all!?)
Gov't is not God - regardless of the elites self esteem.
If the encroachment on our lives is not STOPPED very quickly (and we determine our own risk boundary), won't be very long before you'll need a "hall pass" to go to your own bathroom!!!!!!!!!!
I just pray that there will be enough of a country to salvage by 11/'22! (But I ain't holding my breath!)

 

[JonC]

The father has recovered from covid and believes he had natural immunity that is better than vaccine.

That position is supported by several medical studies published in professional journals.

So, exactly what “misinformation” does the father believe that justified loosing visitation with his daughter?

peace to you

It does not matter that the father has recovered from covid. We know natural immunity is not as effective as the vaccine. And too many have had covid multiple times.

I am not saying the father has to believe "science" or virologists. But the child should not be put in danger at the objection of the mother just because the dad chooses to believe misinformation.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Almost. The difference is the mother, who had custody, did not want her daughter exposed to a needless risk of covid.

I belueve the mother and child had rights in this matter as well.

It would be different if the judge's decision was against both parents desires.

The child has no rights on this as it's a child and they're the parents. The mother's rights extend insofar as she doesn't want to be exposed, but that does not equal no parental rights for the male. At the very most that would be special transferring protocol for the child.

I cannot believe you support the government preventing a father from seeing his child because he doesn't have a vaccine. That is incredibly evil, dystopian and directly out of 1984.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

It does not matter that the father has recovered from covid. We know natural immunity is not as effective as the vaccine. And too many have had covid multiple times.

I am not saying the father has to believe "science" or virologists. But the child should not be put in danger at the objection of the mother just because the dad chooses to believe misinformation.

Who cares? Are you and the government the arbiter of when to allow a father to see his children?

How about the risk of dying or getting injured in a car crash, which is greater than COVID? Should we stop parents from putting children in vehicles?

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

But evidently - this is a divorce situation - and the court has given one parent more rights than the other.

It's nothing new that the man gets the shaft 100% of the time in divorce court. This just proves it more.

Evangelicals need to speak up on the Feminist judiciary.

 

[just-want-peace]

Seems one poster (name withheld intentionally) is totally for gov't intervention in private lives AS LONG AS IT PUSHES THE VAX!!

 

[canadyjd]

It does not matter that the father has recovered from covid. We know natural immunity is not as effective as the vaccine….

That is misinformation and you know it, or at least you should. The studies show natural immunity is 27 times better than vaccine.

Cleveland Clinic, Pfizer, Maderna all published studies that show no benefit from the vaccine for those who had recovered from the virus.

Additionally, the child appears to be healthy. No mention of preexisting conditions. That means she has new perfect immunity to this virus.

The science says the father does not put this child at risk. The judge is not following the science and neither are you.

All this misinformation that is being pushed by the pro-big government overreach/ anti-science crowd must be exposed and rejected.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

It's nothing new that the man gets the shaft 100% of the time in divorce court. This just proves it more.

Evangelicals need to speak up on the Feminist judiciary.

My advice to women seeking divorce or child support is to get an attorney and take those dead beat dads for every dime they can get.

Evangelicals need to drop the anti-woman support for dead beat dads and abusive husbands.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

That is misinformation and you know it, or at least you should. The studies show natural immunity is 27 times better than vaccine.

Cleveland Clinic, Pfizer, Maderna all published studies that show no benefit from the vaccine for those who had recovered from the virus.

Additionally, the child appears to be healthy. No mention of preexisting conditions. That means she has new perfect immunity to this virus.

The science says the father does not put this child at risk. The judge is not following the science and neither are you.

All this misinformation that is being pushed by the pro-big government overreach/ anti-science crowd must be exposed and rejected.

peace to you

Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months. COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination.

Results showed that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to contract the infection again, compared with those who had received one dose of the vaccine.

Protection against Delta: Comparing vaccines and natural immunity


We have evidence showing that if you've been naturally infected with COVID-19 and you aren't vaccinated, your risk of getting reinfected with symptomatic disease is about 2.5–fold higher.

Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have proven that COVID vaccines will create a better immune response to the Delta variant than the natural immune response people would have if they previously had the virus.

COVID-19: Myth: Natural Immunity Protects Against the Delta Variant - Health Beat

While antibodies from a COVID-19 infection may offer some degree of protection against another future infection (known as "natural immunity"), those who have already had the virus may still be vulnerable—perhaps especially to the Delta variant, the current predominant strain, which is nearly twice as contagious as previous variants. In fact, a study published by the CDC on August 6 compared reinfection rates of people who had previously had COVID-19 and found that unvaccinated individuals were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals.

Why Vaccines Are Still Important to Fight Delta, Even if You've Already Had Covid-19

Dr. Sabrina Assoumou, an infectious diseases physician at Boston Medical Center, cautioned against relying on natural immunity as protection against COVID. "There are still questions about the protection of natural immunity against variants," she told Newsweek. "A recent study showed that the likelihood of re-infection was higher among unvaccinated persons when compared to vaccinated individuals."

What to know about how well natural COVID immunity works against the Delta variant

 

[JonC]

The child has no rights on this as it's a child and they're the parents. The mother's rights extend insofar as she doesn't want to be exposed, but that does not equal no parental rights for the male. At the very most that would be special transferring protocol for the child.

I cannot believe you support the government preventing a father from seeing his child because he doesn't have a vaccine. That is incredibly evil, dystopian and directly out of 1984.

You are not the arbitrator between these parents. We do not know know why the mother has full custody and the father only visitation. Mist divorces end in stated custody with one having primary.

The government is correct to protect a parents right to determine what is appropriate for her child.

You are arguing whether it was right for the father to lost custody....but that was a divorce issue we know nothing about.