Preface by TLB Staff Writer: Christopher Wyatt
The following article is an example of how we the American people have lost our rights and are now begging the courts for our freedoms. It is great that the higher court overruled the lower court, but the courts should have never been involved in the first place. I am upset that anyone would think that the will of the state overrides that of the parent.
All of us who have witnessed or are living with vaccine injury need to fight to change both the mainstream mindset regarding vaccines and the mindset of “choice” that many people are calling for inside of the anti vaccine movement. Vaccines cause injury 100% of the time and it sickens me to the core knowing that the elite have manipulated this into a “parental rights” issue.
Vaccination is about control, it is about robbing people of natural immunity, and it is about keeping the vaccinated as lifelong consumers of the pharmaceutical industry. It has nothing to do with parental rights!
This is why the anti vaccine movement has to change tactics and become a true resistance rather than a bunch of people who talk about vaccines online.
We have to gather the strength to protest vaccine clinics, encourage people of all ages to resist vaccines at all cost, and to change the mindset of the world. Lawmakers must know where we stand, and they must know that we will fight against vaccines (and win) with or without them.
Nothing worth having comes easy and it sometimes means great sacrifice, but do we really have any other choice than to fight back with all that we have?
We The People NOT They The Elite (CW)
Conn. Supreme Court: DCF Can’t Mandate Vaccinations Over Parental Rights
By Robert Storace
In a ruling legal experts said diminishes the power of the state’s Department of Children and Families, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled the department can’t vaccinate children in its custody without parental approval.
In finding vaccinations do not constitute medical treatment Tuesday, the court said the cases of parents whose rights are not terminated have the authority to say whether their children can be vaccinated for childhood diseases. The decision overturned a lower court’s ruling.
The high court’s 7-0 ruling sends a strong message to DCF moving forward, attorneys said.
“This absolutely will have significant consequences for children who have been removed from parents prior to termination (of their parental rights),” said Benjamin Wattenmaker, attorney for the parents in the case. “Unless there is an emergency medical situation, DCF cannot unilaterally obtain medical care without the parents’ consent. It could mean that DCF will now go back to the Legislature to ask for broader power.”
Wattenmaker, an associate with Feiner Wolfson in Hartford, added, “This affects every single child in the foster care system and every parent who has had children removed before termination.”
Susan Filan, a solo practitioner in Westport who’s handled many family law matters, said the decision sets a clear line on the powers of DCF regarding medical treatment.
“What the Supreme Court did was draw a line that defines when DCF can act instead of the parent and when it has acceded to the wishes of the parents unless parental rights have been terminated,” said Filan, a former NBC and MSNBC legal analyst and prosecutor. “I think the agency may view this as curbing some of its powers of authority, but what it does is clarify when it may or may now act contrary to parents’ wishes. It’s a helpful decision for parents and for DCF because some of the questions they deal with on a daily basis can seem murky, but this [ruling] is helpful.”
Most lawyers who deal with such cases may not be affected, according to attorneys following the decision.
“For lawyers who practice in juvenile court, this settles the law under the narrow facts of the case. But, are there far-reaching ramifications for the vast majority of practitioners? I would say not,” said Patrick Tomasiewicz, an adjunct professor at the University of Hartford and a partner at Fazzano & Tomasiewicz.
The justices—citing previous case law —agreed with the parents that preventative vaccinations are not “medical treatment” because “treatment” is defined as the steps taken to cure an injury or disease.
The specific case in question dealt with parents Giordan and Nicanol, whose last names were not released, and the removal of their 1- and 2-year-old children following an April 2016 physical altercation between the couple. A DCF social worker observed the children “smelled of urine, were filthy and were covered with multiple bruises.”
The parents made nolo contendere pleas regarding neglect and consented to the children being committed to DCF custody. While the couple does visit the children, they now live with another family in the state.
The parents asked that their children not be vaccinated on religious grounds. DCF argued for vaccination and a New Britain Superior Court judge agreed. The vaccinations were stayed by the trial court and the Supreme Court, and the minors were never vaccinated, according to Wattenmaker.
The office of the state Attorney General represented DCF. Jaclyn Falkowski, spokesperson for the office, declined to comment.
Follow TLB on Twitter @thetlbproject
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
TLB has other above the fold articles, videos and stories available by clicking on “HOME” at the top of this post. Never miss a new post, sign up for E-Mail alerts at the bottom of the Home page and get a link dropped right to your in-box.
TheLibertyBeacon.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.