A judge has ruled that two young children be vaccinated in accordance with their father鈥檚 wishes in Salmon Arm Provincial Court.

The order comes after the children鈥檚 mother requested a series of further tests before allowing them to be vaccinated.

In reasons for the judgment, delivered by Judge S.D. Frame on Dec. 31, 2019, it is specified the mother, identified in court documents as D.A.T., was not entirely opposed to vaccination or to recommended medical and dental treatment, but did not want her children to receive unnecessary inoculations.

The judgment notes the mother does not want the children vaccinated against diseases that no longer exist in Canada or any they already carry immunity to. She wants them tested for these immunities before any decision on immunization is made. Court documents state she did not have enough money for the tests and the father, identified as D.R.B., refused to pay for them as he considered them unnecessary.

The judgment specifies neither of the children have immunity problems or other ailments that would make them ineligible for live vaccines. The father stated he is concerned about recent measles outbreaks in the U.S. and Canada.

Judge Frame鈥檚 judgment weighed evidence presented by both parents. D.A.T., who represented herself, provided a report from a doctor who claims to be an expert in the study of adverse reactions to vaccines. Judge Frame noted D.A.T.鈥檚 children are not the subject of the report, but rather it was provided to her by the mother of the child who is the subject of the report to assist with litigation. The judgment states the report lacks the proper foundation of an expert report.

鈥淭he difficulty with this is that vaccine adversomics is not a recognized field, none of the references she referred to are attached to the report, and it is difficult to know whether or not this is junk science or a recognized emerging field. Presented as it is in her report, her theory or opinion sounds like a conspiracy theory,鈥� it reads.

The father鈥檚 lawyer produced two binding Supreme Court decisions, as well as further evidence from sources including the World Health Organization, Health Link BC and the Centre for Disease Control, BC Centre.

The judgment states the current best evidence is vaccination is preferable and any adverse reaction to the vaccine is largely outweighed by the risk of contracting the targeted disease. It goes on to say both children are exposed in their home and social environments to the risk of contracting the diseases the vaccines guard against.

Also at stake in the court proceedings were the mother鈥檚 opposition to the older child having X-rays done in the dentists office.

The judgment called D.A.T.鈥檚 concerns over the X-rays unsupported and said they led to painful procedures not in the child鈥檚 best interest.

The judge ordered both children to be vaccinated in accordance with Immunization BC鈥檚 immunization schedule and the recommendations of their family doctor. It was also ordered the father be granted full parental responsibility for the medical and dental treatment of the children. He will have to advise the mother about any medical appointments, treatments or actions taken.

Like us on and follow us on