COVID-19 jab status was used in a recent New York custody dispute.
A Manhattan matrimonial judge decided to suspend a father’s visitation rights with his 3-year old daughter.
The reasoning for the judge’s decision was due to the father being unvaccinated.
This custody battle draws stark comparisons to a similar case earlier this year in Chicago.
Judges drunk with power pretend they’re doctors and authoritatively steal parental rights.
In this case, the judge ordered the father to receive an experimental injection or submit to weekly COVID-19 testing to visit his child.
It’s a diabolical precedent that imposes medical tyranny on unvaccinated parents.
Forcing a medical procedure on someone to see their child is immoral and a gross violation of human rights.
Even more insidious, the judge claimed the unvaccinated father presented a safety threat to the child.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Children have a 99.99% survival rate from COVID-19 and no healthy child in America has passed away from COVID complications.
Using the child’s safety as collateral in this custody dispute is an anti-science power grab from this judge.
It’s not about the child’s welfare.
Instead, the judge’s ruling is to push a political agenda.
A Manhattan matrimonial judge has suspended a Long Island father’s visitation with his 3-year-old daughter unless he gets vaccinated or submits to weekly COVID-19 tests https://t.co/movui1Htua
— Maria Bonanno (@MariaBonanno9) October 15, 2021
New York City judge prevents Long Island father from visiting his three-year-old daughter in Manhattan during custody dispute unless he gets COVID vaccine or has weekly tests pic.twitter.com/iW7uAYRh6N
— Daniel Thornton (@Panamadan61) October 15, 2021
A Manhattan judge suspended a Long Island father’s visitation with his 3-year-old daughter unless he gets vaccinated or submits to weekly COVID-19 tests.
This is one of the most sickening things that I have ever heard in my life.
When is enough finally enough?
— KEVIN SURDI (@Surdi4Congress) October 15, 2021
The New York Post had the story:
“The dangers of voluntarily remaining unvaccinated during access with a child while the COVID-19 virus remains a threat to children’s health and safety cannot be understated,” the jurist said in the Oct. 7 decision, which withheld the parties’ names.
The ruling requires the father to either get the jab or present a weekly PCR test in addition to a biweekly antigen test within 24 hours of a scheduled visit, which currently takes place every other weekend.
“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, who presided over divorce and child custody cases involving actor Robert De Niro, actress Uma Thurman and former NBA star Lamar Odom.
The mother’s lawyer Evan Schein lauded the ruling and said it was fully justified.
“It’s an incredibly important one that highlights the extraordinary times we are living in and reinforces that a child’s best interests are paramount,” he said.
But the father’s attorney countered that the judge had set a dangerous and unjustified precedent that isn’t based on science.
The dad was previously infected with COVID-19 and has immunity that may be as protective as vaccination, lawyer Lloyd Rosen told The Post.
“My client is not a conspiracy theorist,” the attorney said. “He has concerns about the vaccine. He’s heard about side effects. He once had a bad reaction to a flu vaccine.”