There was another recent family law COVID case of interest out of the Supreme Court Nassau County.  What I found interesting about this case is it is not only a case about COVID vaccinations, vaccinations of children, and about joint decision making; but what was fascinating was the way the court dealt with the decision about vaccinations versus overall decision making, and fears of medical influence.

            A father filed an order to show cause to modify the parties’ divorce decree seeking, among other things, to have his eldest son vaccinated.  The parties’ divorce decree awarded both parties physical custody and joint decision making.  The father testified he was vaccinated and the mother, he stated, had also made some decisions that he felt was not in the children’s best interest when it came to their health.  The mother claimed that she believed the adverse effects of the vaccine in her research on the children outweighed the benefits.  The children’s pediatrician recommended the vaccine be given.  The court granted the father authority for decisions on vaccinations only.  (S.M. v. E.M. June 28)

            The takeaway from this, is the court did not take the opportunity to usurp the joint decision making from the mother nor did it modify the joint decision making to allow the father to have final say on the sphere of influence regarding medical decisions.  The court instead carved out a “sphere” (so to speak) for vaccines only, as the parties had very different perspectives on this particular health issue. 

 Note that the court did not change decision making in any other way. Thus, allowing the parents to continue to “co-parent.”  The courts are adverse to changing agreements particularly when it comes to joint decision making and joint custody as the trend in the law as I have repeatedly stressed is for parents to raise their children together and co‑parent.