Citing ‘thought-provoking’ anti-vax sources, Ontario judge rules couple’s kids should not be vaccinated

A Hamilton family court judge has ruled in favour of a mother who does not want two of her children to be vaccinated against COVID-19, suggesting in his written decision that she presented credible evidence from the internet that the jab may have dangerous side effects.

The case involved a mother, C.G.. who is 34, and father, J.N. 35. The couple married in 2007 and separated in 2014. They have three children, a 14-year-old son, 12-year-old daughter and 10-year-old son. The youngest two reside primarily with their mother. The eldest son lives with his dad. Only their initials are used in the ruling.

Last month, the father asked the court to allow his two youngest kids to receive the COVID vaccine, against their will and that of their mom.

Earlier in the pandemic, a judge dismissed the father’s attempt to compel the children to attend school in person, complaining the mother was too protective of the children when it came to COVID.

“Now he’s saying she’s not protective enough,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz wrote of the father in his Feb. 22 judgment.

The COVID-19 vaccination has been approved by Health Canada as safe and effective for children aged 12-17. About 90 per cent of Ontario children between those ages have been vaccinated, including the couple’s eldest son.

Pazaratz wrote that, on balance, the woman’s “cautious approach” against the vaccine is compelling and reinforced by the children’s preferences, which are legitimate and must be respected.

“Her current concerns about the vaccines are entirely understandable, given the credible warnings and commentary provided by reputable sources who are specifically acquainted with the issue,” Pazaratz wrote, referring to the mother’s submissions, which cited several discredited sources from the internet.

Among them, his ruling cited an article quoting American Dr. Robert W. Malone, whom the judge described as “the inventor of the mRNA vaccine.”

Malone, who among other things falsely claims the COVID-19 vaccine is ineffective, has been widely denounced by medical experts as a high-profile source of anti-vax misinformation, including with appearances on Fox News and Joe Rogan’s podcast.

“Whether he is right or wrong about the current use of COVID vaccines is a matter for discussion and determination. But with his credentials, he can hardly be dismissed as a crackpot or fringe author,” Pazaratz wrote.

Nature.com described Malone’s role in the “the tangled history of mRNA vaccines” last year. The article stated that while Malone, in late 1987, did perform a “landmark experiment” that was a “stepping stone towards” the development of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, “in reality, the path to mRNA vaccines drew on the work of hundreds of researchers over more than 30 years.”

In an article last month, the Washington Post described Malone’s views as “discredited” misinformation, noting how he had “repeated falsehoods” at an anti-vaccine rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

“His claims and suggestions have been discredited and denounced by medical professionals as not only wrong, but also dangerous,” the article said. “Twitter barred him for violating the platform’s coronavirus misinformation policy,” the paper said. Malone declined the Post’s request for an interview.

Pazaratz’s ruling also includes references to other medical experts who have been accused of spreading vaccine misinformation.

The parents both filed affidavits in support of their positions that included copious material they downloaded from the internet. Neither provided any evidence from a medical professional about any potential positive or negative considerations with respect to the children receiving COVID vaccines, the judge wrote.

“This is not the kind of case where the court can say that either side is necessarily correct. Nor that the same determinations should apply for every child, no matter the circumstances,” Pazaratz wrote.

Commenting on the mother’s internet submissions, Pazaratz said he is not “for one moment suggesting that we should presume the mother’s experts are right. But once we determine they’re not crackpots and charlatans, how can we presume that they are wrong? Or that they couldn’t possibly be right.”

Further summarizing the mother’s position, the judge said pro-vaccine parents “have consistently (and effectively) attempted to frame the issue as a contest between reputable government experts versus a lunatic fringe consisting of conspiracy theorists, and socially reprehensible extremists.

“This was absolutely the wrong case to attempt that strategy. The professional materials filed by the mother were actually more informative and more thought-provoking than the somewhat repetitive and narrow government materials filed by the father.”

Pazaratz’s ruling is also replete with musings about polarization, misinformation, pandemic-fatigue and ends on a personal note.

“It’s irrelevant to my decision and it’s none of anyone’s business. But I am fully vaccinated. My choice,” he wrote.

The lengthy decision blasts “intolerance, vilification and dismissive character assassination in family court,” and takes swipes at elected officials. “It’s becoming harder for family court judges to turn enemies into friends — when governments are so recklessly turning friends into enemies.”

Pazaratz also has sharp criticism of the father’s “relentless campaign to dismiss the mother as some sort of lunatic.” (At another point in his ruling, the judge praised the pair as “excellent parents.”)

“Ridicule and stigmatize your opponent as a person, rather than dealing with the ideas they want to talk about,” wrote Pazaratz. “It seems to be working for politicians.”

The Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.