I lost custody of my son for refusing to vaccinate
- Thread starter Lesa Dawn
- Start date
The ACLU, unfortunately, has not been too friendly to religions from what I've seen. It is worth checking out, since you are not debating the tenants of Christianity, but rather, a state law you feel the government has violated itself, which they would be likely to help you with. Best to throw a ton of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks in this case, and the ACLU is certainly worth contacting.
To ignore someone. Go to "User CP" in the upper left hand corner of the forums. On the left tabs, you'll see "Edit Ignore List" then insert the member name you want to ignore.
Hello Acala and thanks for all of the very good advice.
It is hard for me not to obsess on this. It is the first thought when I wake up in the morning and the last before I fall asleep at night. My baby is gone and it is hard to concentrate on anything else. I do find solace in my Bible which is always by my side.
Compromise how? As for my Christian beliefs, I am not willing to compromise regardless of what the reprecussions may be.
I wish it were possible to keep the courts out of it. But it is not.
Hello NiceGoing and thanks for the advice and well wishes.
Hello, romacox and thanks for the advice. I visited and posted my story on several antivaccine websites. On another forum I was given a link for an antivaccine law firm. I contacted them and they want $15,000 to represent me.
It would be great if I could find something similar to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association that deals with vaccines. Does anyone know of anything like that?
Actually I did homeschool my son for a semester. I re-enrolled him in public school under duress, but I refused to vaccinate regardless. My son was immediately tested upon re-entering public school. According to guidelines reading level for his grade was between 500-600. He scored a 757 which is highly advanced.
The court admitted that he was not behind academically (which is an understatement as he was advanced), but still admonished me for failing to file with the state. When I told the Commissioner (she wasn't even a judge) that Missouri law does not dictate state oversight for second graders, she disagreed. I AM RIGHT. Missouri law states that you may file a notice of homeschooling with the state, but that it is strictly voluntary.
How very scary that we have courts run by Commissioners that do not know the laws of the state. And that these same Commissioners have the power to take away your child.
I have been interviewing local attorneys and have learned that this Commissioner has a history of these actions. One even said, "Let me guess, you had Commissioner So and So"
Thanks TC95 and welcome to this thread. As stated in my OP, the Supreme Court further stated that the religious exemption was valid regardless of one's church affiliation.
However, unfortunately for my son and me, we had both a Guardian and a Commissioner that do not know the law, but think they do.
Yes, they immediately vaccinate him.
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
Hello Mini-Me and welcome to the thread.
I am familiar with the argument that a marriage license gives the government authority over the children. However, the dad and I were never married. My son was nine years old and had always lived with me.
Live_Free_Or_Die
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,852
This one is for you Mini-Me because you consider arguments of reason and do not always rush to emotional conclusion.
I wanted to address your specific comment about busybody courts because it has historical context:
Forum Selection Clause
The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company, 407 U.S. 1 (1972) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered when a U.S. court should uphold the validity of a contractual forum selection clause.
The parties had entered into an agreement for a drilling rig to be towed from Louisiana to Italy, which included a clause stating that disputes would be settled by a court in England. When a storm forced the towing party to make land in Tampa, Florida, the other party sued there. After the lower courts refused to uphold the forum selection clause, the Supreme Court held that it was enforceable unless the party seeking to avoid it could meet the high burden of showing it to be unreasonable or unjust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that United States federal courts will enforce forum selection clauses so long as the clause is not unreasonably burdensome to the party seeking to escape it.
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, held the Shutes to their deal. The Court noted that Florida is not a random jurisdiction - Carnival is headquartered there and does much business there, and Washington does not necessarily make sense in the context of an accident off the coast of Mexico on a ship that left from California. The hardship on the plaintiffs mattered little, as they had signed the contract, and no one forced them to go on a cruise. On the other hand, it made sense for the cruise industry, which carries passengers from all over, to have a single forum for lawsuits. The cruise line will thereby avoid defending itself in many different courts, which will save money, which will translate to cheaper tickets.
Choice of Law Clause
A choice of law clause or proper law clause is a term of a contract in which the parties specify that any dispute arising under the contract shall be determined in accordance with the law of a particular jurisdiction
I am not going to bother citing anything for the choice of law clause. The ignorant people in this thread can look up their own shit.
Elwar
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2007
- Messages
- 8,226
This is quite horrible. I was born and raised in Michigan where I was not required to be vaccinated. It wasn't until I had to go to Iraq for work with the military that I was finally vaccinated after several weeks of trying to find a way out of it.
It sucks that they vaccinated him. That's a form of child abuse in and of itself if you and he were against it.
What state do you live in? Each state has its own statutes on what basis you can refuse vaccinations. Some allow you to based purely on a philosophical disagreement with vaccinations.
I would sue the hell out of the state and ask for damages and then take your money and run to New Hampshire.
It sucks that they vaccinated him. That's a form of child abuse in and of itself if you and he were against it.
What state do you live in? Each state has its own statutes on what basis you can refuse vaccinations. Some allow you to based purely on a philosophical disagreement with vaccinations.
I would sue the hell out of the state and ask for damages and then take your money and run to New Hampshire.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,899
What state are you in? Family law is different in all 50. It's a little fuzzy from the facts, but I take it that you were initially awarded custody post a divorce? Did the dad sue to get the custody changed or did the state take it 100% on itself to do this? It makes a big difference. State can "factor" in all sorts of crap under a "best interest of the child" standard when awarding custody to one parent or another that wouldn't pass muster a "unfit parent" standard used to take a child and put him in foster care.
I'm not up on the particulars of vaccine law, but the "You can't get an exemption unless you belong to one of two religions" doesn't pass the smell test. Personal faith is an individual right, not a right that you "earn" by being part of some particular "group".
Emailing Alex Jones is a waste of time. He simply gets too many emails. If you want on the show you need to call in. Some days it's easy to get in, other days it's not so easy.
Last point. Check your local law school. Most have legal clinics that can help with this sort of thing.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,899
Two points.
1) In both cases the forum selection clause still meant that the parties would be subject to some court's jurisdiction.
2) In both cases these were disputes about a contract.
Sorry, but there's no mention of any contract in the facts in the OP. It's unclear if the dispute is between the OP and her child's father or between the OP and the state. Do you think the state is going to sign a contract that says that it doesn't have jurisdiction over someone in their own state? What could possibly induce a state to do that?
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
A Center That Can Meet Your Legal Needs
I am truly sorry that your son was taken away from you on such a trivial matter. I would like to suggest that you make your case known to this organization:
American Center for Law & Justice
Let them know as soon as you can. My prayers are with you.
I am truly sorry that your son was taken away from you on such a trivial matter. I would like to suggest that you make your case known to this organization:
American Center for Law & Justice
Let them know as soon as you can. My prayers are with you.
torchbearer
Lizard King
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 38,926
the doctrine where the state owns your children is called "King as father".
I would at least get the government on record as claiming right over your child.
I would at least get the government on record as claiming right over your child.
Acala
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,421
Wow
Dude, you don't even make sense. Try and stay on the point.
This is it: as far as the court is concerned, your agreement is not required for service of process. And once you are served, with or without your consent, the court takes jurisdiction over you and the dispute up to and including dragging you in chains before the bench to hear a judgement against you which will be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.
I don't know what you intend to convey with your gobblydygook, but the limited matter at hand - whether the court can take jurisdiction only with your consent, is clear and beyond dispute. It can and will.
Oh, and by the way, you can't contract away the State's jurisdiction when a minor is involved. The state considers the minor to be a party in interest who did not and could not be a party to the contract. So even if the parents have an enforceable forum selection contract it will not work when a minor is involved.
Dude, you don't even make sense. Try and stay on the point.
This is it: as far as the court is concerned, your agreement is not required for service of process. And once you are served, with or without your consent, the court takes jurisdiction over you and the dispute up to and including dragging you in chains before the bench to hear a judgement against you which will be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.
I don't know what you intend to convey with your gobblydygook, but the limited matter at hand - whether the court can take jurisdiction only with your consent, is clear and beyond dispute. It can and will.
Oh, and by the way, you can't contract away the State's jurisdiction when a minor is involved. The state considers the minor to be a party in interest who did not and could not be a party to the contract. So even if the parents have an enforceable forum selection contract it will not work when a minor is involved.
Last edited:
Live_Free_Or_Die
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,852
I agree there is no mention of contract which was relevant to my point of voluntarily leaving a matter entirely up to a state.
I would not expect a state to do anything less than try to establish jurisdiction over every person or thing regardless of any prohibitions in state constitutions. It is up to an individual to rebut presumptions of jurisdiction legislated in state statue or supported with case precedent at all times.
Regarding "some courts jurisdiction" Do you think that is an absolute where an arbitrator could not be substituted for "court" under any circumstances in any contract?
The alleged heartless contexts of my posts do not address who the dispute is between but I agree with you it's unclear where a charge originated.