LINK Chicago judge revoked Rebecca Firlit’s custody of her son until she gets the covid vaccine - The Washington Post
(This is coigtn to cause trouble. I"ve had adverse reactions to vaccinations in the past and wavered about getting vaccinated myself. In the end I opted for the J&J vaccine as one dose was less likely to affect me adversely)
When Rebecca Firlit joined a virtual court hearing with her ex-husband earlier this month, the Chicago mother expected the proceedings to focus on child support.
But the judge had other plans.
“One of the first things he asked me … was whether or not I was vaccinated,” Firlit, 39, told the Chicago Sun-Times.
She was not, she said, explaining that she has had “adverse reactions to vaccines in the past” and that a doctor advised her against getting inoculated against the coronavirus.
“It poses a risk,” she added.
Cook County Judge James Shapiro then made what the parents’ attorneys called an unprecedented decision: He said the mother could not see her 11-year-old son until she got a coronavirus vaccine.
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I hate paywalled articles but I know how to steal them. This is a joint custody hearing. The father is fully vaccinated, the mother is not. She made some bullshit claim that she's vaccine sensitive but the judge ruled on his own. If the father had petitioned that he didn't want the child exposed to the virus, the judge would have the authority to rule on that petition. The article claimed the father wasn't trying to deny her custody. This judge did it on his own. I agree with this in principle, I think the vaccine should be mandatory, but it's not. I don't think this judge has that authority, being that the vaccine is not compulsory. This will be overturned. ***This has been overturned
[blockclubchicago.org]
barjoe
Level 9
Aug 30, 2021
3
Okay then the judgr shouldn't be thrown off the bench. Everyone's allowed to be unreasonable and wrong from time to time, as this judge acknowledged he himself was with changing the verdict.
Well that's what happens when you give authoritarians a little power. Maybe next he'll decide she should be thrown in jail or committed to a mental institution or not be allowed to enter a grocery store to shop for food. Or maybe after that he'll order the health dept to come souldier her doors and windows shut. I think this judge should be thrown off the bench. A discredit to the Amercan judicial sysytem, this decision is! The only way this decision can make any sense is if the child is in a very high medical risk category. Then the judge's decision would apoear to have some acceptable rationale behind it. I did not read the full article you linked, but I did peruse the story elsewhere and that detail of son's health was not included.
Flowerwall
Level 7
Aug 30, 2021
0
It's joint custody. If the father was the custodial parent and had petitioned the court that he wanted her vaccinated, the judge could've ruled this way. You might not like it but he has that authority. If custody was previously taken away from her, he could've used the vaccine as a motivation to restore it to her. I don't think he can just pull this ruling out of his ass.
Ohferpetessake....it is patently obvious one parent has the health & welfare of the child as a priority, the mother wants to use that child for some political statement. Just like you.
And the Judge is doing as he must, protect the child.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.