A Canadian man has lost custody of his three children after a judge ruled he posed a risk to his immunocompromised 10-year-old daughter because he had not been ‘vaccinated’ against covid.
Last week, the father, identified only as Mr F. in court documents, had in person access to his children suspended by Justice Nathalie Godbout in the province of New Brunswick.
The Judge also ruled that the children’s mother could have them vaccinated against Covid-19 despite the Fathers objections, The Canadian Press reported.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
In her written decision the judge said that she was revoking the father’s access “with a heavy heart” but that the children “must be given their best possible chance at evading infection from Covid-19”.
USA today reports: The father presented research to the judge that he believed questioned the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, but the judge ruled against it.
“His own anecdotal research on such a highly specialized topic carries little to no weight in the overall analysis when measured against the sound medical advice of our public health officials,” wrote Justice Nathalie Godbout of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
The order allows the father to interact with the children over Zoom and reevaluate the sentencing if he does get vaccinated, but the mother can overrule his lack of parental consent to get her children vaccinated, according to the ruling, CBC reports.
For weeks, protesters opposed to vaccine mandates and other restrictions have held rallies in cities across Canada.
Niamh Harris
did the over lards take them away? again
If these judges want to run for political office they need to step down from the bench. This ruling is a farce rooted in politics, not science.
She appears to be or have been also on the board of ASSUMPTION LIFE .
Her decision based on his anecdotal evidence seems vague. We aren’t privvybto the alleged anecdotal information and have no way of knowing exactly which scientific data or statistics or which mefical experts he has accessed in the devision making process. She seems very biased or very ignorant or both. Certainly a decision which needs an Appeal but he probably can’t afford the lawyers bill . So they get there way.