Chicago Judge Strips Mother Of Parental Rights For Being Unvaccinated

a reply to: Krakatoa

Is the father vaccinated???

I don't know, but I would venture a guess that he is.

Who gave him that power???

The state of Illinois, I reckon. And, again, the decision is subject to appeal as such decisions are.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I started a thread about the powder keg these authorities are fueling.

If they understood the danger they're putting themselves in, by issuing crazy decisions rules and orders, they would exhibit greater sanity.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CrazeeWorld777

surely the judge has no rights to do this and should lose his job!

Actually, family court judges have very wide authority.

This does not preclude appeals.

Do you agree with the judge's decision?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


He's a Democrat. Say no more. Laws, the Constitution, your rights, mean n.o.t.h.i.n.g. to them. They base everything on how they feelz. I would bet dollars to donuts this judge doesn't have a clue what this mRNA injection is. He is probably as ignorant as the vast majority of people that actually think this is a vaccine similar to all others. Ignorance doesn't mean one is stupid...it just means they're ignorant of the facts.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

What about the child? Is foster care less dangerous to the child than being with an unvaccinated mother????

Who said anything about foster care? The mother has (for now) lost shared custody rights. The child will be with the father.

Look 'Phage', I know this is what you do here; add sensible replies to make people question what they are thinking. But maybe now and again actually contribute to a thread? What are your views on this?

If true then this is shocking. Are there details missing from this story? Is she a drug addict or something? If not then this mum needs her kid back ffs, this should not be happening.

a reply to: SeventhChapter

It won't be long before we start seeing this kind of bullchit from authorities because eight months has passed since the person was vaccinated.

a reply to: doorhandle

I think the mother should get her lawsuit going. I'm not sure if she personally sues the judge or the state or the county or all of the above but I hope she wins some money and that judge gets fired. I wonder if she can make that part of the settlement in the lawsuit, that the judge gets fired. I hope so and I hope she does and I hope she wins.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: norhoc

The person to whom I replied seems to believe that the judge exceeded their authority.

If you look at past case law it appears YES he has.. it isnt just "one" poster here on ats that thinks this or even in the country. it is true the ultimate last legal stop is the supreme court who can say it is or is not... but its YOUR OPINON that he has the right.

I said that family court judges have wide authority.

NOT TO allow people to break the law, to rule against the constitution, and rule against legal presidence set down by previous rulings to include the suprem court.

This is a simple fact, not a "defense."

No your giving YOUR OPINION...at best your "defense" of this (and that is what it is...OWN IT) is no different than the opposite OPINON given by the op and others here.

however viewing case law on medical issues in family court i cannot find nor have you presented a case(s) where a child custody is removed because an EXPERIMENTAL vaccine is not given for a virus where the SCIENTIFIC FACT is children have the LOWEST CHANCE of catching, passing and THE LOWEST OF ALL GROUPS (unless pre existing medical condition) of dying from it.

So if we go by that YOUR OPINON is at least on the surface WRONG.

as is the judge

scrounger

originally posted by: Wballz
a reply to: SeventhChapter

Good job judge

Yeah better for him to get fired sooner than later. Good job indeed!

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: SeventhChapter

Phage's facts. He is the arbiter of truth and facts.

That should be a new forum on ATS... Phage Facts

I think it’s ironic, with some on this board.
It’s incredibly difficult to determine truth—incredibly difficult to discern what a fact is. There are often two sets of facts. Scientific studies are manufactured fraud and misleading , the medical authority can no longer be trusted, judges going rogue, the origin investigation of the greatest attack on humanity was covered up with “facts” from a fake narrative about a pangolin and bat, even though blatant evidence showed otherwise.

Then we have all these fact checkers, who are clearly pushing an agenda.
Control the information, and you control the perception, and ultimately the minds of the people you wish to conquer. They have been working for decades to get their people into gov, science, media, law enforcement, and in this case, he judicial system. Our enemy barely even had to lift a finger....they just manufacture a fake reality, gain our trust, and then just herd the population to the concentration camps by giving them free donuts and chance to win a million dollars, but without a future world to spend it in.

We Are In An Information War.

Many on this board still haven’t figured this out. It’s staring them directly in the face.
Wake the eff up

a reply to: scrounger

So if we go by that YOUR OPINON is at least on the surface WRONG.

Family court judges do not have wide authority?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: norhoc

but you are ok with NO JAB, NO KID policy

Please show where I expressed this.

sigh

you JUST DID by saying the judge has the "broad authority" to do so

funny thing.. i cant find where your coming out AGAINST this, saying the judge IS WRONG, or saying the whole concept is wrong...

just DEFENDING THE JUDGE by the ruling is within his authority

im sorry but do you really need examples of a judge exceeding his authority?

i have a doozy of one that i bet you would not defend of "broad authority"

scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: norhoc

The person to whom I replied seems to believe that the judge exceeded their authority.

If you look at past case law it appears YES he has.. it isnt just "one" poster here on ats that thinks this or even in the country. it is true the ultimate last legal stop is the supreme court who can say it is or is not... but its YOUR OPINON that he has the right.

I said that family court judges have wide authority.

NOT TO allow people to break the law, to rule against the constitution, and rule against legal presidence set down by previous rulings to include the suprem court.

This is a simple fact, not a "defense."

No your giving YOUR OPINION...at best your "defense" of this (and that is what it is...OWN IT) is no different than the opposite OPINON given by the op and others here.

however viewing case law on medical issues in family court i cannot find nor have you presented a case(s) where a child custody is removed because an EXPERIMENTAL vaccine is not given for a virus where the SCIENTIFIC FACT is children have the LOWEST CHANCE of catching, passing and THE LOWEST OF ALL GROUPS (unless pre existing medical condition) of dying from it.

So if we go by that YOUR OPINON is at least on the surface WRONG.

as is the judge

scrounger

This^
Exactly

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Thank you for asking.

I think it (the decision) may be somewhat uninformed. I do not think it was well founded if vaccination status is the only criterion. It is however, within the judges authority.

a reply to: scrounger

When Phage said...

I said that family court judges have wide authority.

He is correct. The judge obviously has the authority, mom hasn't seen her son in over 2 weeks. Wheather he over stepped his boundaries is a matter of opinion and will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court in the state and hopefully it gets thrown out there. If not undoubtedly this will go to the U.S. Supreme Court and hopefully it gets thrown out there. If not then holy sh!t there will be a major sh!t show to watch.

a reply to: Phage

While its true that a family law processings afford a judge wide latitude in consideration of the outcome, however this is a bit of a stretch. Neither party brought vaccination up in the petition nor in any subsequent motion. I know, at least in Florida, the law considers the best interest of the child (i.e., spending time with parents), and there is a presumption that there is time sharing with the child between the parents. There would need to be something significant (e.g., a parent being in jail, child abuse, etc.) in order for a judge to deny time sharing for a parent. I don't know what the law says for that state, but most states hold similar standards.

a reply to: SeventhChapter

I believe that this falls under Miscarriage of Justice and personal bias on the part of a Judge on an opinion that was outside his authority to rule upon and any legal representative for the lady with any level of competence would immediately call for a mistrial and demand a fresh trial and a REAL judge that does not put his or her personal bias over the case, a judge is merely meant to adjudicate upon matters of law NOT step outside that as this would seem to be.

As such I believe that at least in any nation with a PROPER legal system this judge would also be up for a competency hearing before higher level judges.

I wish this lady and her children well, this verdict is patently wrong if it was made by someone whom allowed personal bias to over ride legal boundaries like this.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Wballz
a reply to: SeventhChapter

Good job judge

Yeah better for him to get fired sooner than later. Good job indeed!

Good luck with that.

His friend, Cook county state's attorney Kimberly Fox, lets six out of every 10 murder suspects stay free while awaiting their trial.

Guess what they do while on parole?

a reply to: LABTECH767

I am going to research this a bit more as well, I am totally against the judge doing this if it is as appears on the surface, but there must be more to it.