Domestic Relations - Custody - Childhood Vaccinations - Medical Decisions

By Deborah Elkins
Published: June 29, 2009

Although parents had joint legal custody of their three-year-old daughter, a Fairfax Circuit Court awards mother sole authority over health and medical decisions for the child, including a right to assert the religious exemption to mandatory childhood immunizations in Va. Code § 32.1-46(D)(1).

The child has had no immunizations thus far. The father supports immunizations and has supported the child taking a prescribed antibiotic for what was either a cold or a sinus infection.

The court finds the mother’s religious objection to routine immunization to be bona fide and genuine. Undoubtedly, she also has substantial medical and scientific concerns regarding immunization, but that does not make her religious convictions any less sincere and authentic. Specifically, the court rejects the father’s assertion that mother has adopted her religious objections to immunization for the purpose of manipulating the court.

Initially, both parties called an expert witness on the issue of the risks and benefits of routine immunization. However, because the father’s lawyer never had the opportunity to cross-examine the mother’s expert, his testimony was struck in its entirety. The father’s expert testified that there were no contraindications to the child receiving routine immunizations and recommended the Prevnar, MMR, DPT, polio, Hepatitis B, varicella and flu vaccines.

The evidence before the court is uncontradicted and undisputed that the child would benefit if she received routine vaccinations.
The court has no doubt that mother is in a better position to make health and medical decisions for the child.

The child is three and one-half years old, in good physical and mental health, other than some chronic symptoms such as post-nasal drip, which may indicate allergies. The mother remains the parent primarily responsible for attending to the child’s medical needs. There have been numerous visits and phone calls to the child’s pediatrician and, for the most part, it has been mother who is the parent interacting with the child’s pediatrician and the pediatric practice. Mother is the parent who took the initiative to obtain a referral to an allergist because of the child’s persistent colds, runny nose and cough, and a family history of wheat allergies. Mother has thoughtfully and fully explored each medical issue that has arisen in the child’s life.

The court’s sole reservation in finding mother to be in a superior position to assess and meet her child’s medical needs is the very decision that brings the parties to court today, i.e., the question of routine vaccinations. However, her objection is substantially, although not exclusively, a religious rather than a medical, objection. This is significant because the court has concluded that the medical benefits of immunization outweigh the medical risks. Also, the mother’s objection is to routine vaccination and does not extend to vaccinations medically indicated due to a specific exposure, such as rabies or tetanus.

Both parents are substantially and productively engaged in raising the child, consistent with the current custodial schedule.
In sum, after considering each of the factors in Va. Code § 20-124.3, the court concludes that it is in the child’s best interest for one parent to have sole authority on medical and health care decision making, and that the parent who is most able and capable of making those decisions is the other.

The court assigns to mother sole and full medical and health care decision making for the child. Specifically, this authority includes the right to determine whether the child shall have routine immunizations.

Grzyb v. Grzyb (Bellows, J.) No. CL2008-4659, June 12, 2009; Fairfax Cir.Ct.; Sharon V. Filipour for plaintiff mother; Virginia C. Haizlip for defendant father. VLW 009-8-131, 11 pp.


© Copyright 2010 Virginia Lawyers Media. All Rights Reserved.

POST A COMMENT

Today's Top Opinion

Municipal - No Inverse Condemnation From Flooding
In a case of first impression, a Fairfax Circuit Court says a one-time incident of flooding does not support a cause of action for inverse condemnation against VDOT and Fairfax County.
Livingston v. County of Fairfax (VLW 010-8-051) (10 pp.)

GET THE VLW DAILY ALERT

The Daily Alert from Virginia Lawyers Weekly brings you the latest legal news every morning in your e-mail. You’ll get headline news, a link to the day’s Top Opinion and more!

Click here for more info.

E-mail Sign Up:


Feeds/Web 2.0: