"Parents are being denied their right to make these medical choices every single day...The biggest mistake here is thinking the court is going to work for you.” –Allison Folmar, Human Rights Attorney
For individual parents who have fallen victim to the US justice system, the epidemic of court ordered vaccination of children and loss of custody battles is nothing new. However, it was only recently that mainstream awareness has been served a dose of inconvenient truths happening in communities across the US. In September, back-to-back cases in Michigan’s Oakland County court spotlighted the growing issue of court ordered vaccination of children, against the wishes of their mothers. One mother, Rebecca Bredow, was sentenced to seven days in jail, shortly after she and her attorney were told by the judge the following:
“I want to make it perfectly clear. We're leaving here today. Dad's picking the child up and he's going to be vaccinated regardless of what Mom did or didn't do.”
The other mother, Lori Matheson, whose case resumes on November 14, nearly had her medical expert witness dismissed because of what appeared to be the judge’s unfamiliarity with a field of adversomics and limited knowledge of the frequency and severity of vaccine injury among US children. However, no judge can dismiss an expert witness if they don’t understand the finite, technical issues involved.
Perhaps it was timing, perhaps it was fate. Whatever the reason is, people are now talking about the court’s role in overruling a parent's carefully made decision and force-vaccinating a child. After the recent court case in Michigan, it is clear that even though you may be a good parent, it doesn’t guarantee the courts will rule in your favor. Michigan parental rights attorney Allison Folmar recently weighed in on the matter with further points for parents to understand when facing down the courts to secure their parental medical choice. It is vitally important that a parent heading into court is educated on how the legal system handles these types of cases. Folmar stated, “The courts are afraid to have this fight about the vaccines.” What this means for a parent who wishes to protect their choice to not vaccinate their child is that the parent’s entire past will be up for grabs as the court and opposing lawyers look for anything to use as leverage while attempting to avoid the vaccine discussion. Folmar continues, “The court is going to do everything possible to circumvent that issue [vaccines] because it doesn’t know, procedurally, how to go about having a hearing on strictly the vaccine issue.” Folmar goes on to suggest that a parent facing court appearance over the right to not vaccinate their child should consider demanding an evidentiary hearing. It is also advantageous to have expert witnesses reserved in advance if the parent anticipates a legal fight.
Due to the fact that so many parents are voicing their experiences with courts, it may be advantageous to get on the offensive. Folmar suggests, “We have to start filing 1983 actions. Folmar continues stating what many parents have lived through first-hand, “You have to remember that this is the overreaching arm of the government clearly, in this case, being the court denying a parent their right to make that choice.”
Although the courts continue to muddy the waters regarding these cases, taking parental choice and vaccine rights away from a parent is not the same as judging custody. As it stands currently, vaccine choice is being lumped together by courts as a custody case.
Along the same vein, custody cases involving Child Protective Services (CPS) vs. non-vaccinating parents appear to be another issue that is becoming a hot button topic for liberty-minded families. Many innocent parents who are suddenly thrust into a position of having to defend their parental rights and custody over their own children within a court system are put on the defensive. Once again, Folmar offers the idea of filing a 1983 action as a possible step and for such situations:
”You have to be proactive. You have to be prepared to know that you may have to be the plaintiff in this matter. In my experience…I have filed 1983 actions when the parents were going through these matters when they were being threatened and when we serve and file that action, all of the sudden it’s hands off…they [CPS] don’t think that the parents have enough emotional fortitude to be able to deal with what’s going on and be able to handle them [CPS] too.”
When the issue of vaccination threatens to come into play in a legal setting, will any lawyer be able to handle the case? According to Folmar, there is a difference, as she explains, “You have to have a lawyer that understands that this is a medical issue….There’s a finite area of law that has to be understood here and the lawyer on that case needs to understand that this is not your normal custody battle. This is nearly a medical malpractice case.”
Is there anything people can do now to avoid having to fight the courts for the medical decision-making rights over their child? “Put it in writing now,” says Folmar. “Just like you would do a will, you need to have the parents who agree that 'we believe that it is in the best interest of our child not to be vaccinated and here's why'...make sure you put the here's why...everything you know, everything you've learned, all the research you've done put that in that agreement. Have it signed and notarized. Put it in a safety deposit box. And if you want to put if there is some dissolution of the marriage then this document will prevail whoever gets custody.”
One thing is for sure, as America moves forward, exponentially more eyes will be on the courts and their heavy handed dealings with parents who wish to exert their parental rights and medical choice over their children. In addition, the current Acting Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Eric Hargan, has been served a legal notice for his agency's alleged failures to perform the duty of assuring the safety of vaccines being administered to America’s 78 million children. Regardless of the outcome, the HHS notice stands as a testament to over three decades of a failed oversight of the American vaccine program that has had many injured and killed.
For individual parents who have fallen victim to the US justice system, the epidemic of court ordered vaccination of children and loss of custody battles is nothing new. However, it was only recently that mainstream awareness has been served a dose of inconvenient truths happening in communities across the US. In September, back-to-back cases in Michigan’s Oakland County court spotlighted the growing issue of court ordered vaccination of children, against the wishes of their mothers. One mother, Rebecca Bredow, was sentenced to seven days in jail, shortly after she and her attorney were told by the judge the following:
“I want to make it perfectly clear. We're leaving here today. Dad's picking the child up and he's going to be vaccinated regardless of what Mom did or didn't do.”
The other mother, Lori Matheson, whose case resumes on November 14, nearly had her medical expert witness dismissed because of what appeared to be the judge’s unfamiliarity with a field of adversomics and limited knowledge of the frequency and severity of vaccine injury among US children. However, no judge can dismiss an expert witness if they don’t understand the finite, technical issues involved.
Perhaps it was timing, perhaps it was fate. Whatever the reason is, people are now talking about the court’s role in overruling a parent's carefully made decision and force-vaccinating a child. After the recent court case in Michigan, it is clear that even though you may be a good parent, it doesn’t guarantee the courts will rule in your favor. Michigan parental rights attorney Allison Folmar recently weighed in on the matter with further points for parents to understand when facing down the courts to secure their parental medical choice. It is vitally important that a parent heading into court is educated on how the legal system handles these types of cases. Folmar stated, “The courts are afraid to have this fight about the vaccines.” What this means for a parent who wishes to protect their choice to not vaccinate their child is that the parent’s entire past will be up for grabs as the court and opposing lawyers look for anything to use as leverage while attempting to avoid the vaccine discussion. Folmar continues, “The court is going to do everything possible to circumvent that issue [vaccines] because it doesn’t know, procedurally, how to go about having a hearing on strictly the vaccine issue.” Folmar goes on to suggest that a parent facing court appearance over the right to not vaccinate their child should consider demanding an evidentiary hearing. It is also advantageous to have expert witnesses reserved in advance if the parent anticipates a legal fight.
Due to the fact that so many parents are voicing their experiences with courts, it may be advantageous to get on the offensive. Folmar suggests, “We have to start filing 1983 actions. Folmar continues stating what many parents have lived through first-hand, “You have to remember that this is the overreaching arm of the government clearly, in this case, being the court denying a parent their right to make that choice.”
Although the courts continue to muddy the waters regarding these cases, taking parental choice and vaccine rights away from a parent is not the same as judging custody. As it stands currently, vaccine choice is being lumped together by courts as a custody case.
Along the same vein, custody cases involving Child Protective Services (CPS) vs. non-vaccinating parents appear to be another issue that is becoming a hot button topic for liberty-minded families. Many innocent parents who are suddenly thrust into a position of having to defend their parental rights and custody over their own children within a court system are put on the defensive. Once again, Folmar offers the idea of filing a 1983 action as a possible step and for such situations:
”You have to be proactive. You have to be prepared to know that you may have to be the plaintiff in this matter. In my experience…I have filed 1983 actions when the parents were going through these matters when they were being threatened and when we serve and file that action, all of the sudden it’s hands off…they [CPS] don’t think that the parents have enough emotional fortitude to be able to deal with what’s going on and be able to handle them [CPS] too.”
When the issue of vaccination threatens to come into play in a legal setting, will any lawyer be able to handle the case? According to Folmar, there is a difference, as she explains, “You have to have a lawyer that understands that this is a medical issue….There’s a finite area of law that has to be understood here and the lawyer on that case needs to understand that this is not your normal custody battle. This is nearly a medical malpractice case.”
Is there anything people can do now to avoid having to fight the courts for the medical decision-making rights over their child? “Put it in writing now,” says Folmar. “Just like you would do a will, you need to have the parents who agree that 'we believe that it is in the best interest of our child not to be vaccinated and here's why'...make sure you put the here's why...everything you know, everything you've learned, all the research you've done put that in that agreement. Have it signed and notarized. Put it in a safety deposit box. And if you want to put if there is some dissolution of the marriage then this document will prevail whoever gets custody.”
One thing is for sure, as America moves forward, exponentially more eyes will be on the courts and their heavy handed dealings with parents who wish to exert their parental rights and medical choice over their children. In addition, the current Acting Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Eric Hargan, has been served a legal notice for his agency's alleged failures to perform the duty of assuring the safety of vaccines being administered to America’s 78 million children. Regardless of the outcome, the HHS notice stands as a testament to over three decades of a failed oversight of the American vaccine program that has had many injured and killed.
RSS Feed