State Supreme Court Allows Mother to Vaccinate Children for COVID-19 Against Father’s Objections

COVID-19 vaccines in a file photograph. Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

Two children received COVID-19 vaccines this month despite objections from their father after their mother won a court case that made it to the state’s highest court.

Rhode Island Supreme Court justices on May 5 sided with Lauren Nagel, who argued that the girls needed to receive COVID-19 vaccines even though they’ve recovered from COVID-19, and upheld an earlier ruling by Rhode Island Family Court Associate Justice Sandra Lanni.

At issue is the divorce settlement, which states both parties would jointly decide on major decisions affecting the health of the children and that “neither party shall unreasonably withhold his or her consent to medical treatment for the children or the administration of medication recommended by the pediatrician of the children.”

Dr. Colleen Ann Powers, the children’s pediatrician, recommended the kids receive a COVID-19 vaccine, largely relying on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics, two entities that have promoted misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and recommend them for virtually all unvaccinated people.

Lanni ruled that “based on a totality of the evidence before it and the best interests of the parties’ children in this case, that it is in their best interest to give plaintiff decision-making authority regarding vaccination of the children for COVID, including future boosters, as long as she follows the recommendations of Dr. Powers at the time, because those recommendations could change.”

Joshua Nagel, the girl’s father, appealed, arguing that because the judge found his concerns were “not unreasonable” that he should have ruled in his favor. The actual ruling improperly changed the custody agreement, he said.

Justices disagreed.

“Contrary to defendant’s argument that an objecting parent may ’veto' a decision regarding their children’s medical treatment, we conclude that neither the marital settlement agreement nor the final judgment requires the Family Court to defer to, and automatically rule in favor of, an objecting party,” Justice Melissa Long, writing for the court, said.

When parents disagree on a matter, “their recourse is to return to the Family Court, which has an obligation to decide and resolve the stalemate by considering the best interests of the children,” she added later.

The ruling was 5–0.

The state’s top court said Lanni “fairly considered the wishes of both parents” and only ruled in favor of the mother after taking into account how Powers has been the children’s doctor while Dr. Andrew Bostom, the father’s expert witness, has not examined them.

Bostom had noted that people who recover from COVID-19 enjoy a protection known as natural immunity that many studies have found is similar to or superior to the shielding bestowed by vaccination.

The ruling lifted the stay the court had entered as it considered the case.

Precedent?

The girls have since been vaccinated, Gregory Piccirilli, a lawyer representing Joshua Nagel, told The Epoch Times. The girls would have faced getting a two-dose primary series and a booster under the old Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, but they are slated to receive no additional doses under the updated guidance from the agency.

State law gives the Rhode Island Family Court the authority to hear and rule on motions that concern “equitable matters arising out of the family relationship” and was cited by justices in determining the family court judge could decide for one parent.

Piccirilli said he viewed the ruling as determining “regardless of what the parties agreed to, a family court judge could override that.”

He fears the ruling will set a precedent moving forward that could lead to judges overruling the wishes of both parents.

“It’s going to have implications far beyond this case,” he said.

Jesse Nason, a lawyer representing Lauren Nagel, did not respond to a request for comment.

The court rejected an amicus brief authored by University of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard Bradley and signed by dozens of doctors and others that advocated against vaccinating the children. The brief noted that the vaccines present little benefit to young, healthy children and can cause side effects like severe allergic shock.

Three of the five justices on Rhode Island’s Supreme Court were appointed by a Democrat governor. The other two were appointed by a Republican governor. Democrats have controlled Rhode Island’s legislature for decades and they currently hold all statewide positions such as governor and all congressional seats.

Bostom, a retired professor of medicine, said he thinks the decision would have been different in a different state.

“In a red state, these kids would never have gotten vaccinated. I mean, it’s that simple. That’s how arbitrary this has become, it’s really terrible,” Bostom told The Epoch Times. “We’re all convinced to that. If this had happened in Florida, here’s no way these these healthy young girls—with two bouts of COVID, doing fine—there’s no way they would have been made to get vaccinated by a court.”