Avatar feed
Responses: 7
1SG Signal Support Systems Specialist
5
5
0
Parents are expected to care for their children and not put their children in danger.
(5)
Comment
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
>1 y
1SG (Join to see) Makes Sense to Me!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SrA John Monette
2
2
0
The judge made the right decision. The health and safety of the child must be first and foremost for a parent. If the father doesn't want to get vaccinated, fine. But don't endanger your child, whom you claim to love.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SFC Casey O'Mally
>1 y
How is that endangering the child? The father has not tested positive. It creates a far lower risk for the child than driving down the road.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ James Woods
1
1
0
Wow! Can't see a ruling like that happening here. Wonder how the judge would rule in a case where the mother refuses to get herself and the child vaccinated and the father was actually vaccinated.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
>1 y
The same way...I bet you follow men's rights groups too huh?
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ James Woods
MAJ James Woods
>1 y
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff No I don't. Just a divorced father whose teenage daughter is antivax with her mom's antivax support. Whose ex-wife tells him "her body, her choice" but when daughter is sexting with her boyfriend, the ex-wife wants him to side with her on "no sex". My response: her body, her choice. Just saying I don't expect many US judges to have this Canadian judge's approach on a topic of what's in best interests of a child.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close