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

I also disagree that the child ha no rights. The child has the right to life.

If we can say the child has no rights, that one parent can willingly endanger the child against the will of the other parent, then how can we say things like abortion is wrong?

No...the child cannot make the decisions but the child has rights.

 

Misinformation - there are no vaccine studies that utilize an entire population.

This is deliberate misrepresentation of scientific ctudies. You should know better.

The fact is natural immunity does provide limited protection, but the protection is not as effective as the vaccine. Covid has been proven to decrease t-cells (it had been assumed they would increase) while the vaccine increases the count.

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).

 

No. The father was evil by putting g what he views as a right over his child's safety.

The difference is suicide vs abortion. You can argue a man has a right to his own health decisions (and I agree) but you are wrong to suggest a man has the right to endanger a child over which he has no custody.

There are too many children dying of covid to simply dismiss the wishes of the mother in protecting her child.

 

since I dont want to hijack the OP -
I answered the above question here:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/deadbeat-dads.122292/

 

You are calling good evil and evil good.

Covid cases among children have risen (sharpley). Hospitalizations among children have claimed due to vovid. Deaths among children have been on the rise due to covid.

And we know (the science shows) that the unvacvinated are a primary cause.

The judge was right - regardless of the data - in protecting the parents right to protect the child under her custody.

The mother's decision was up to her. Having survived covid the father was at a decreased risk of getting it again....but he still posed a significantly higher risk of death to her child.

In the US we have had almost 700 children die of covid and the numbers are rising. 700 children may not sound like a large number to those who rely on statics - but to the rest of us these are 700 children.

One preventable death is too many.

 

The question is"
Why did mom use that reason/excuse

Because she was genuinely concern
or
because she wanted to be vindictive.

So - does that child always wear a mask
does mom always wear a mask

Does mom do everything possible to stay 2 meters away from others.

Does mom............................................

 

I also question the mothers reason. But we have to shy away from assumptions because we really don't know.

The facts are the father could have taken measures to better protect his child but refused. The mother expressed a desire not to subject her child to a greater risk (regardless of how low the risk is, it is more than necessary).

The father rejects the science behind vaccines. He may rightly say he is a lower risk to his daughter having had covid BUT he is a higher risk having not been vaccinated.

 

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. This means there is no indication the father had any say in education and medical issues.

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