Alberta mother granted right to vaccinate immunocompromised son after father's objections

A courtroom at the Edmonton Law Courts building, in Edmonton on Friday, June 28, 2019 (The Canadian Press/Jason Franson).

An Alberta mother was granted complete control of all medical decisions for her immunocompromised son after the child's father did not want him vaccinated against COVID-19.

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Justice Anna Loparco issued the ruling on Friday in Edmonton after the case was heard last month. The judge noted the father's refusal to let his son be vaccinated was grounded in medical misinformation and conspiracy theories. 

The names of the mother and father and their nine-year-old child were removed from the decision for privacy protection.

According to the written rationale for the judicial decision, Loparco wrote that the child has asthma and was diagnosed with B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in 2019. After undergoing a chemotherapy protocol, the boy was declared in remission by August of that year.

Treatment is expected to continue until September this year to prevent a relapse. Specifically, the child must visit a cancer clinic every 12 weeks for outpatient treatments and take a daily oral chemotherapy pill.

The parents had cooperated in his treatment plan, Loparco noted, until around February 2021.

"The mother deposed that the father advised her that he felt cancer was fake and just a way for the government and pharmaceutical companies to make money," the judge said.

Loparco added that the father refused to administer the oral medication to the child and hoped to consult a naturopath. The judge also asked the father to FaceTime the mother anytime the child was required to take medication "to ensure it is done."

In April, after an emergency application, the court ordered the father to take the child to all medical appointments scheduled within his parenting time. The father, who had obtained legal counsel, agreed to comply so long as he could have joint-decision-making power and shared custody, with one week on and one week off.

In December, the mother filed another emergency application after hearing from the oncology clinic that the father refused to take the boy to his scheduled appointment, contrary to the order.

'YOU'RE HARMING MY PROPERTY'

Later that month, the mother emailed the father expressing her intention to have their immunocompromised son vaccinated against COVID-19 after the child's family physician and oncologist both recommended it.

He responded by saying in part, "You're harming my property."

According to the father's testimony, he missed the December appointment because he was dealing with personal health issues. He insisted that he would comply with future medical appointments.

The father, who was self-represented at this point, expressed anti-vaccine views in his affidavit to the court.

"(He) stated that the vaccine is experimental; that it has not undergone rigorous human testing to ensure vaccine safety," Loparco said, adding that the father submitted unscientific articles penned by non-experts that could be summed up as "misleading and conspirational in nature."

"The Father deposed that he believes COVID-19 to be fake," the judge said. "He further indicated his belief in proven effective homemade treatments as hydroxychloroquine and indicated he shared this view with the child."

The man told the court he believed in cancer but was concerned with the treatment recommended by the oncologist, saying he wanted to supplement the plan with naturopathic remedies which the boy's doctors had refused.

When responding to the comments that the mother was harming his "property," the father defended the notion, arguing that view emerged from England in the Middle Ages and that it is "correct" in common law. He admitted that his son should have a say in the decision to get vaccinated.

Loparco said that based on the testimony, affidavit, and evidence presented, the father could not be trusted to make medical decisions for the nine-year-old. In addition, the mother was awarded $665 in costs to be paid by the father.

"I find it is in the child's best interests to grant sole-decision-making authority to the mother," Loparco said.

The judge said that a large scientific consensus shows that immunocompromised people, including children, are at higher risk of severe illness and death from contracting COVID-19.

"(The father) argued that the vaccine is useless because his child has no immune system," Loparco said. "That is the point. He (the boy) has little to no immune system to be able to fight the COVID019 virus and therefore needs the vaccine to give him the best chance of survival."

Loparco also ordered that the father must take the nine-year-old to all medical appointments during his parenting time and that he, or any other third-party, cannot discuss the issue of COVID-19 or vaccination. 

In December, a similar ruling in Lethbridge was issued regarding a different seperated parent's ability to vaccinate their immunocompromised child. Other rulings on this issue have been released in other jurisdictions across Canada.

Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta vaccine decision by CTV News Edmonton on Scribd