Resolving COVID-19 Vaccine Disputes

Published on
May 25, 2022
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Custody and Child Support

Co-parents often have disagreements when it comes to medical treatment for their children. In the past, we've seen frequent disagreements over the "standard" array of vaccinations that pediatricians typically recommend. For instance, one parent may wish his or her child to receive the full array of shots, whereas the other parent may only want certain shots. Whatever the case may be, disagreements over medical treatment are not novel. Now, the COVID-19 vaccine developed in response to the COVID-19 virus provides ground for more disputes and disagreements among co-parents. Although all parents wish for the best health for their children, not everyone agrees regarding the efficacy or safety of the various COVID-19 vaccinations.In this post, we're going to discuss some of the issues involved in resolving COVID-19 vaccination disputes among co-parents.

Verify the Terms of Your Custody Order

If co-parents disagree about the vaccine's efficacy or safety, they should try fixing this disagreement without involving the court. This is the optimal strategy if you can resolve this matter privately between you and your ex-spouse. In many cases, however, co-parents need additional assistance. If you run into a roadblock with your ex-spouse, verify the terms of the custody order. Often, the specific terms of a custody order will identify which parent has the "final say" or overarching authority to make certain legal decisions, even over the other parent's objection. For instance, if one parent has "sole legal custody" – although this is relatively uncommon here in Maryland – then that parent may have the authority to make the final decision. Moreover, even if the custody order grants joint legal custody, there may also be a provision that awards decision-making authority in certain scenarios.

Gather Supporting Evidence on the COVID-19 Vaccine & Parenting History

If necessary, depending on the facts and circumstances, you may go to court for assistance in resolving this dispute. If you go to court for resolution, be aware of what testimony will carry the most weight with the judge. As a general rule, judges will give the least weight to parents' "personal opinion" regarding COVID-19 vaccine. The reason for this is simply because these opinions aren't necessarily based on scientific or medical realities. By comparison, judges will give more weight to the testimonies of the child's medical providers, who can provide data on how the vaccine will impact the child's best interest. If one parent has a history of being involved in the child's medical issues, then the court may give weight to that parent's preference.Furthermore, if one parent has a religious objection to the vaccine, as is common among certain Christian sects, for instance, then the court may give weight to that parent's position as well. Religious convictions are taken seriously because many parents wish to rear their children according to their deeply held beliefs. Be advised that if you present this view in court, the court will request evidence of the religious conviction's genuineness.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

There is usually no way to accurately predict how this dispute will be resolved in a court environment. The more you learn, the more you can generate an accurate sense of what will likely happen. If you'd like to learn more, please contact The Murphy Law Firm for more information by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Child custody|COVID|Covid19 effects on Parents|Covid19 Pandemic|Divorce|Effects of Covid19 to Children|Family Law|Maryland Child Custody

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.