The Rhode Island Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a mother from getting her children vaccinated against COVID-19.
A trial court in January rejected arguments from Joshua Nagel, the children’s father, and said Lauren Nagel, the mother, could take her children to get COVID-19 vaccines. Lawyers for Joshua Nagel quickly asked the state’s top court for a stay.
A single justice entered a temporary stay on Jan. 26. The full court reviewed the case and on Feb. 9 said it was keeping the stay in place. Justices ordered Joshua Nagel to perfect an appeal within 15 days and for the parties to appear in court for oral arguments on April 13.
“We are just very gratified that the RI Supreme Court has granted this stay and is willing to listen to our arguments as to why these two young girls do not need the COVID vaccine,” Gregory Piccirilli, a lawyer representing Joshua Nagel, told The Epoch Times via email.
A lawyer representing Lauren Nagel did not respond to requests for comment.
The case is believed to be the first in the country dealing with a parental dispute over COVID-19 vaccines to make it to a state supreme court.
At the core of the case is a divorce settlement that says both parties would jointly decide on major decisions affecting the health of the children, who are 8 and 5, respectively. The pact also stated that “Neither party shall unreasonably withhold his or her consent to medical treatment for the children or the administration of medication recommended by the pediatrician of the children.”
Dr. Colleen Ann Powers, the children’s pediatrician, recommended the children get a COVID-19 vaccine. In her practice, she and her workers have administered some 1,500 to 2,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses. Powers says benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks.
The vaccines are authorized to prevent COVID-19 but they provide little protection against symptomatic infection, officials are increasingly acknowledging. Powers said the main benefit is protection against severe illness. No efficacy data from clinical trials supports that claim, and observational data on the protection in children is mixed.
Rhode Island Family Court Associate Justice Sandra Lanni, after hearing from both parties and their experts, ruled on Jan. 17 in favor of Lauren Nagel.
“It is clear from the evidence that was submitted to the court that there is not uniformity of agreement in the medical community regarding whether children, in general, should receive the COVID vaccine and whether the benefits of the vaccine to children, in general, outweigh the risks or vice versa,” Lanni said. She also said that Joshua Nagel’s opposition to Powers’ recommendation was not “objectively unreasonable.”
The judge, though, concluded that the divorce settlement language does not mean that if one parent has a reasonable objection to a pediatrician’s recommendation, then that parent would automatically prevail.
“The court concludes, based on a totality of the evidence before it and the best interests of the parties’ children in this case, that it is in their best interest to give plaintiff decision-making authority regarding vaccination of the children for COVID, including future boosters, as long as she follows the recommendations of Dr. Powers at the time, because those recommendations could change,” the judge ruled.
She said she was particularly persuaded by Powers’s personal knowledge of the children’s medical history and her experience treating them, including giving them other vaccinations, in addition to “the fact that her recommendations are supported by the AAP and the CDC.”
Lanni later ruled against Joshua Nagel’s motion for a stay, which would have enabled the mother to take the children to get COVID-19 vaccines. That prompted an emergency motion to the state Supreme Court, and the temporary stay. The new ruling keeps the stay in place, at least for now.
Read the full story here.
Scroll down to leave a comment and share your thoughts.
