H1N1 vaccination custody issue.

[ocean]

Ok....you are out of the country so what stops mom from taking child to the dr and getting shot there? This is a very small issue you raised compared to what is really going on in your case.

I am confused....do you have custody in YOUR country and trying to get child back? Why is this an abduction?

[Kitty C.]

One thing to keep in mind is that the US does NOT recognize dual citizenships.  My son is eligible for citizenship in Canada for the simple fact that his father was a Canadian citizen when DS was born.  Canada will recognize both his US and Canadian citizenship, but the US only recognizes his US citizenship.  So the citizenship of the child in this case is a moot point if this custody case goes through a US court.  Now, IF you have some kind of legal custody of the child in the country you live in, then the Hague convention will come into play, but only in regards to the possible abduction.

[zikzak]

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the US does NOT recognize dual citizenships. My son is eligible for citizenship in Canada for the simple fact that his father was a Canadian citizen when DS was born. Canada will recognize both his US and Canadian citizenship, but the US only recognizes his US citizenship. So the citizenship of the child in this case is a moot point if this custody case goes through a US court. Now, IF you have some kind of legal custody of the child in the country you live in, then the Hague convention will come into play, but only in regards to the possible abduction.

"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause"... (can't post the link but you can find this info in the web site of the US state department.)

Ok....you are out of the country so what stops mom from taking child to the dr and getting shot there? This is a very small issue you raised compared to what is really going on in your case.

I am confused....do you have custody in YOUR country and trying to get child back? Why is this an abduction?

ocean, AFAIK this forum is about helping people with their doubts about issues that have to deal with parenting and family issues.

my question it's plain simple should school listen at both parents?


you give your point of view but please do not take this to other areas there is nothing to be confused about it.

stop assuming things do read and understand the Hague convention treaty, it does not just deal with abductions.

please lets keep focus on the topic.

thanx.

[Kitty C.]

We ARE focusing on the issue.....the issue is whether you have the legal standing that the school or any other facility can/will recognize.  You still haven't stated if you have a US order giving you legal custody, so we have to go on the assumption that you don't.  Yes, the Hague convention may very well come into play, but ONLY through the courts.  Schools and medical offices go on court orders, NOT the Hague convention.  If you have no official legal custody through a US court, then you have to ascertain your rights through the courts via the Hague convention.  Once it is ruled on in your favor, then and only then will a school or medical facility recognize you as a legal parent.

Also understand that we have no idea how the US recognizes the Hague convention, we are not attorneys and the advice given here is based upon personal knowledge and experience.  We DO know that there are countries who signed the Hague and do NOT recognize it.  It is seen often enough in the media, especially with two international custody cases currently in the headlines, one in Brazil and one in Italy.

"The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause..."  That means the US does NOT recognize citizenships from other countries, period.  They only recognize that other countries do.

[ocean]

Wow...I have been on this site for over 10 years (just like a lot of us) and we are trying to help you.

We have explained how schools and medical facilities work here in the US. The system is far from perfect...but you will have to deal with what it is.

[MomofTwo]

Regarding ocean, "AFAIK this forum is about helping people with their doubts about issues that have to deal with parenting and family issues.  my question it's plain simple should school listen at both parents?  you give your point of view but please do not take this to other areas there is nothing to be confused about it. "


Whether you like what was told to you or not, Ocean is correct.  What you fail to understand is that legally, you are NOT recgonized in the US as having parental rights, therefore, you do not have a say about what is best or permissible for your child. The school does not have to listen to "both parents" because you are not legally considered having legal rights to that decision making for the child.   Period. 

What you fail to understand is that in the United States, in many states, an unmarried father of a child born does not automatically have rights or say regarding the upbringing of the child.  The "father" has to be given those rights through court, which is what you are doing.  The mother of the child is presumed to have sole custody and decision making until a court says otherwise.   You may not like it, but  that's the way it is.  You are in the process of trying to obtain rights but until a court says you do, you don't and the school nor anyone has to consult with you or get your permission regarding the child.   Additionally, with you being out of the country, don't be surprised to not be given shared legal custody.  Decision making regarding a child is difficult when people reside in the same area, but particularly difficult when out of the country.

Regarding the very original post, regarding H1N1, if this type of decision would go the courts because you do not agree with Mom, you have to provide a whole lot  more for your argument then I just don't agree with it.  The pros and cons would be evaluated and if that is your only arguement weighed against the benefits, you lose that arguement.

You may not like what someone has offered you, but there are people on this board who have extensive knowledge in dealing with these very issues in the US.  You don't have to listen or even post, but you don't get to be rude about it either.

[Davy]

Wait !  Hold on !

The OP has not been rude in any way.  Nor did he ask about H1N1, dual nationality, the Hague, or even the rights of an unmarried single father.   The OP emphasized it has been a long running legal battle to determine a proper custodial parent.  Needless to say, the child is VULNERABLE in all aspects of life and I am happy for the child that a parent is attempting to protect the child particularly against the possible abuses of "the state".

The OP  simply and kindly asked a perfectly legimate question about preventing the government from medicating a child and we should all be concerned with that issue.  THAT IS THE ISSUE and no one has yet to justify what authorizes the "power of the state" to even register the child in their school let alone force the child to be medicated against the wishes of a parent.

I content the state does not have that authorization or even use the "convenience" of a school district to accomodate their goals as if the children have been designated as "wards of the state".

As example, it took a Federal court to prevent and stop the state of Illinois from abusing Texas children.  Illinois actions were based on socialists policies and excuses while ignoring the rules of law and even accused the father of being against "the peace and dignity of the people of the state " when he was the ONLY civilized one.

Hope you can comprehend and understand.

[4honor]

Having dealt with not only the school system, but the doctors when there is joint legal custody and there are disagreements in non-emergency medical and educational decisions, here is our experience. I hope you find it helpful.

In our case, DH had joint legal custody, the court order specifically states that each parent has emergency medical decision making and that they have joint non-emergency decision making. Each parent had the day to day decsion making while in their care. BM who had primary custody decided SS needed to be medicated for attention deficeit hyperactive disorder. Her diagnosis went in search of a doctor willing to write the perscription with little to no testing. The doctor had no medical history on the father and ignored other symptoms that SS had. Dr did a double blind study with 2 evaluations filled out (one from the BM, one from the school.) The school did their supposed evaluation on a day that SS was not in school -- he was out with the chicken pox. It was a mess. And we could not block BM from giving SS the medications for 8 years. The problem was regular medications legally fell into the day to day decision making.

The long and the short of it was that we could not block the doctor from prescribing the medication. We could not block BM from giving SS the medication, but we could withhold it with out repercussions. Eventually, the custody order was modified and wording was put into the order that BM MUST consult with DH prior to any non-emergency medical decision making.

Timing is going to go against you, as in order to block the vaccination, you will need a court order to block. With the holidays so close here in the US, the likelihood of obtaining that order is slim prior to the H1N1 becoming available (and likely utilized by the other parent.)

A hospital, doctor, clinic can treat a child with the permission of one parent, regardless of the wishes of the other parent, even when the parents are in an intact relationship. Only you can determine how your being out of the country effects your situation. The slowness of the courts is likely to be your biggest hurdle.

[mdegol]

I've got your argument, Davy, but the question really comes down to: What happens when two parent disagree about a medical decision.  If both don't want or want a vaccine, the state does not override that decision (usually....).  When they disagree, that's when we invite the state into our private decisions regarding these issues.  Of course, the state can stop children from attending daycare, school ect, so it is important to keep those issues in mind as well when making those decisions.  Since father is out the country, it is in his interest to see the types of discussions that take place regarding this sensitive issue (I know father doesn't want discussion of that in this forum, but it is a great learning experience for him).

As a result, a discussion about other issues is pertinent to the question.  This father does have to think about these things to get a full answer to likely outcome.

My little piece, depending on how strongly father feels about issue, is that:  There are several factors working against his struggle for joint legal.  Long distance, age of child (thus amount of time mother has had sole legal) to name a couple biggies.  By making an issue, you are showing a third big one, that you are not able to come to agreements with mother in some cases.  Joint legal works when parties agree on (most) joint decisions and are of a like mind.  If you are going to end up in court over these issues, then it may be a reason for the court to go the sole legal route.  Additionally, if mother believes in vaccination, this is going to be a relatively moot point given the age of the child.   

Additionally, as an aside social issue (to inform father) this is a hot button issue in USA right now, so depending on your judge, they may label you a (forgive this term but it makes the point) nutcase, again making them go against joint legal.  Given the proven benefits of vaccination, you are going to have a hard time making a case that you are in the right due to potential and yet unproven significant risks of side effects from vaccine administration. If you could do so, reliably, you are likely to make CNN headlines also. Remember also, the state likes vaccinations.  Judges and courts are members of the state.  I guess what I am saying is: it may not be in your interest to pursue this route if your goal is obtaining joint legal?  Comes down to what is more important to you?  Having a say in her life decisions in the future or do you feel that the risks of vaccination warrent a hot pursuit of this avenue that you are going down?  I understand where you are coming from, since my DH is from out of the country and has strong feelings about this also, but there is an overwelming set of factors in US that are hard to work against when it comes to medical related issues and child custody.

[Davy]

OK ... just a FEW points to ponder concerning a parent's inquiry to stop government from medicating his child..

I was hoping to explain and assist ... not argue.

16 yo grandson visited TX this weekend from FL.  He told his uncle and I about a separated / cracked shoulder injury he received in a varsity football game (yike ! he was a freshman).  After a long run he was tackled at the 5 and dog piled.  He went to the side line in pain, took off his pads, and the school personnel (coaches) told him to go to the concession stand for some ice.  The lady working the concession stand (probably a parent) took him back to the coaches and told them he needed immediate medical attention.  After the game, one of the coaches wisely took him to his mother (an RN) and he got medical treatment at a hospital.  His child kidnapping grandma has been given custody by the state...own children removed from her and rights terminated to husband's children.  At least the coach knew better than to take him to his grandma.  The point : the lady working the concession stand had to initiate medical treatment ... not the school personnel AND the boys' loving caring  non-custodial mother assured medical treatment NOT the STATE  DESIGNATED "primary" child snatching parent.

There are many medical abuse "realities" at goverment-operated medical facilities (ie VA hospitals).  If I told of personal experiences or what has been witnessed ... .you may think I was exageratering or lying.   The point : mature out-spoken brotherhood of military veterans are constantly protecting themselves and others that may not be able to protect themselves against the government.