Divorced Sask. parents fight in court over COVID-19 vaccination for teen daughter

A judge has ruled the13-year-old child ofdivorced Saskatoon parents should be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite legal opposition from thegirl'smother.

The fathersaid his daughter was initially excited to receive her shot, but was then "bombarded" with false information by her mother and hisown parents.

CBC News agreed to grant the father confidentiality in order to protect the identity of the daughter.

"[It felt likethe] summer from hell," the fathersaid of his efforts to get his daughter protected against the virus that causes COVID-19.

He'sspeaking out about thefamily rift and thejudge's decision in support of vaccination to offer comfort to other divorced parents who may be in a similar situation,he said.

"Ican't lose this case because it's going to affect so many other people."

The law firm representing the mother said she is appealing the decision anddoesnot want the case publicized.

CBC News reached out multiple times to seek direct comment fromher lawyer and did not hear back.

Mother views Pfizer vaccine as dangerous: judge

The father soughta court ruling that his daughtershould get vaccinated in May, when she was 12.

InaSept. 9 decision inSaskatoon'sCourt of Queen's Bench, Justice Michael Megawruled in favour of the father.

Megaw stated the motherexpressed viewschallenging "the prevailing wisdom surrounding all of the health concerns arising from COVID-19,"including skepticism about the seriousness of the pandemic and a view that thePfizer-BioNTechis experimental and dangerous.

"This case is not about whether there is, or has been, a pandemic with respect to the COVID-19virus," Megaw wrote. "The Pfizer COVID-19vaccination is safe and effective for use in people, including both adults and children."

Megaw'sdecisionarrivedamid the fourth wave of the pandemic, which has broughtan increase in the proportion of infections in Saskatchewan youth, includingschoolchildren. Only children aged 12 and up, or people born in 2009 or earlier, are currently eligible to receive the vaccine.

The case may beone of the first of its kind in Saskatchewan involving COVID-19vaccination, Megaw wrote.

While Megaw notedthe mother said the daughterdid not want to get vaccinated, "there is concern over how much [the daughter] has been influenced," Megaw wrote.

"There is, moreover, concern over COVID-19and the need to be vaccinated."

Dr. Saqib Shahab, Saskatchewan's chief medical health officer, recently aired concerns about the province's future child-vaccination rates.

"Yes, vaccines will be available next year, maybe,for children five to 11," Shahab said earlier this month. "But if we go by current trends in parents of those children in various parts of Saskatchewan, [it] certainly does not give us great optimism for the uptake in children."

Alliance with grandparents

The parentsinvolvedin the case divorcedmany years ago. Megaw reviewed submissionsfrom both parents, including affidavits from doctors supporting either side.

Dr. WilliamCode, an anesthesiologist and former tenured professor at the University of Saskatchewan'sCollege of Medicine, interviewed the daughter for an hour over video, according to Megaw's decision.Dr. Codediagnosed her with a"possible" vaccine toxicity issue andgaveher a vaccine exemption, Megaw wrote.

Megaw said he gave no weight toDr. Code'sopinion because the possible diagnosis was "rather remarkably"basedon the 13-year-old'srecollection of her own medical history, without any apparent input from the parents. The assertion of vaccine toxicitywas "not clear from the material," Megawsaid.

"It can reasonably be concluded from the entirety of the material filed, and the submissions advanced, that the mother both opposes vaccination generally and questions the accuracy of the various COVID-19information being disseminated by the health authorities," he said.

Megaw said he drew that conclusion based onthe mother's brief, her "alliance" with the paternal grandparents,anda supportingaffidavit from a B.C. doctor named Dr.Stephen Malthousedisputing the safety of the Pfizer vaccine.

Malthouse has been reprimanded by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. Megaw said he was not qualified to "opine" on the topic.

"The evidence before the court is that the paternal grandparents are opposed to vaccinations for COVID-19 and have been in contact with and, seemingly working with, the mother," Megaw wrote.

The father told CBC News his parents arevaccine opponents who help organizeprotests against COVID-19 measures.

"I don't know ifI'll ever talk to them again," he said.

Judge defends father's COVID-19 protocols

According to Megaw's decision, the mother alleged the father has been "punitive" to the daughterby enforcingCOVID-19 protocols, includinguse of a sanitation station, online schooling and testing for COVID-19if symptoms are shown,as well aslimiting non-family members in the houseand contact with unvaccinated people.

Such measures "were well known throughout society and I am unable to conclude any of the father's measures were either unusual or overbearing," Megaw wrote. Themother's assertionthat the measures are a form ofpsychological and emotional abuse is "rather difficult and overreaching," he said.

While Megaw acknowledged the mother's evidence that there was conflict between the father and daughter in July,Megaw said that would be addressed in a separatecourt process about the family's parenting planand is "of no assistance" todeciding whether the daughter should be vaccinated.

"It is clear the child and father had an argument. He appears to have taken parenting action and the child reacted badly to that. Since then it appears parenting continues. The incident does not appear to have been repeated. Their relationship appears to continue."

The father's evidence

The father marshalled doctors of his own to help defend his position, including Dr. Alexander Wong, a Regina-basedinfectious diseasephysician who has been an outspoken advocate of COVID-19 vaccines and stronger public health measures from the Saskatchewan government.

Wong,whothe judge called"eminently qualified" in the area of COVID-19, spoke to the daughter to answer her questions and reviewed the affidavits from Drs. Code and Malthouse, calling some statements from Malthouse "simply wrong," according to Megaw's decision.

The daughter's pediatrician from birth saidshe should get vaccinated, noted Megaw.

"Counsel for the mother raised in argument that this physician had been bullied by the father into presenting the opinions which she did. I reject this submission outright. There is no such evidence before the court," he wrote.

Megawdecided it's in the best interest of the daughter to be protected against COVID-19and that the father is entitled to arrange for the daughter's vaccinationwithout the consent of the mother, butin consultation with the girl'sdoctors.

"Those health-care professionals who have had direct involvement and treatment of this child can continue to make the medical judgments they have been making in the best interests of this child," he wrote.

Appeal delays vaccination, father says

The father said he approached his daughter's doctors about the vaccination process last week, but that it had to be put on hold given the mother's appeal of Megaw's decision.

The whole process has been "unbearable," he said, but thebacking fromother relatives and his employer has helped.

"They fully supported what I was doing in court;whatever time I needed, constantly checking in on me, asking me if I needed time off."

The divorced parentshavea second child,an 11-year-old boy who will be eligible for COVID-19 vaccination when he turns 12 or perhaps even sooner, depending on the progress made by Pfizer.

The fathersaidhe's not worried about a repeat of his current legal quagmire.

"My son really wants to get vaccinated," he said. "He wants to get back to playing his sportssafely, so he knows he needs to get vaccinated.

"If it takes another court case, the second one should be very simple, because we have all the evidence already."]