To London, Ont. father plans to appeal a decision made in family court that was made because of his beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.
According to court documents, the father Jonathon, now has limitations on when and where he can see his three children, and a temporary order is in place giving the kid’s mother, Madeline, primary care of the children.
Jonathon and Madeline, who are separated but still living in the family home with the children, were both seeking an order granting them decision-making responsibility, including whether their five-year-old child should receive a COVID-19 vaccination,
The document reads, “I [Justice B. Tobin] find that it is in [the five-year-old child’s] best interest that she has the option to be vaccinated. This will not occur if the father continues to have decision-making responsibility regarding this issue. Consequently, I also find it is in [the child’s] best interest that the mother have sole decision-making responsibility regarding the child getting the COVID-19 vaccination.”
The court document also reads that, “The mother asks that the father’s parenting time with the children be limited and subject to restrictions until he is fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”
According to the decision, the father’s parenting time will take place twice a week from 3:30 pm to 7 pm including alternate weekends from 12 pm to 7 pm
The father is also required to take a COVID-19 rapid test every week prior to his visit with the children and shall send a screenshot of the test result by text message to the mother.
Justice Tobin also made the decision that, “In this case, the father chooses not to take the COVID-19 vaccination. His choice of him not to become vaccinated puts the children at risk of harm should they contract COVID-19. He can reduce this risk by being vaccinated. His parenting time with the children must be restricted to reduce their risk of harm…. This parenting time order may be reviewed upon the father providing proof he is fully vaccinated (two doses and a booster) or upon any change in government recommendations regarding safety precautions.”
Court documents also reveal ongoing issues between the two parents as it relates to other childhood vaccines.
The document reads, “Before the parties agreed to marry, the father told the mother he ‘did not believe in vaccines.’ In response, the mother told him that if he would not agree to vaccinate their children, the relationship would be at an end.
The document goes on to say he eventually agreed that any children they had could be vaccinated and the two married in 2015.
“The parties are the parents of three children… eleven [the now five-year-old] was born, the father did not want her vaccinated,” according to the court document. “The parties compromised by having the child receive one vaccine at a time instead of the standard schedule of two or three vaccines at a time.”
The mother also previously claimed that the father of her children would “not allow her to get a flu shot or whooping cough booster” while she was pregnant with the couple’s third child.
According to the mother, as per the court documents, the father had other ideas that were of concern to her, including, “He covered the electric meters outside of their home in tinfoil to ‘block radio frequency waves.’ “The father’s evidence is that he did this to hide them from the children.
“Allegations were made against him for his parenting, for his belief system, all of which he denied and said ‘this has been used to characterize me as a conspiracy theorist type person,’ and not someone who has an engineering background, somebody who has an understanding of science, and who does a lot of reading and research on his own. That didn’t come out in that judgement,” said the father’s lawyer, William Doran of Millars Lawyers London.
As of March 1, the mother is to have primary care of the children and shall have decision-making responsibility in relation to vaccinating the children against COVID-19.
“Part of the basis of this appeal would be to say to the higher court in Ontario, ‘listen, we got inconsistent decisions, people need to know with clarity what the lay of the land is here.’ And it shouldn’t be a draconian type of thing here where a father is penalized, children are penalized. Children can’t sleep in their own bed at night because of a nominal risk for a pandemic that is going the other way,” said Doran.
CTV News London also reached out to the lawyer for the mother and received the following statement:
“It is our position that the Temporary Order is in line with the case law. The Court considered a number of factors in coming to its conclusions with respect to what is in the children’s best interests. It is my client’s position that the Court’s decision is consistent with the children’s best interests,” said Hilary Jenkins of McKenzie Lake Lawyers.
— With files from CTV News London’s Bryan Bicknell