It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps it would mean that the judge has decided also that all foster parents be vaccinated ...
originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.
If this stands, and they file an appeal, does the judge's order stand while the appeal is processed (perhaps taking years)? What about the child? Is foster care less dangerous to the child than being with an unvaccinated mother????
Wow.
originally posted by: SeventhChapter
Shapiro then ordered that Firlit be prevented from spending parenting time with her son until she gets vaccinated.
originally posted by: OwenTrousers
Anyone who agrees with this decision, clearly hates the unvaccinated.
Bass baaa
originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: EdisonintheFM
Yes God will fix it for you.
Not.
At least give it some energy with prayer if this is where your hope dwells.
Following a flurry of news reports about the decision, a ruling barring a mother from seeing her child for refusing to get vaccinated has been reversed by a Chicago judge. Judge James Shapiro has issued an order vacating portions of his prior order of Aug. 11 allowing Rebecca Firlit to see her son again, according to Rebecca Firlit’s attorney, Annette Fernholz, who gave an interview to Fox 32 Chicago on Monday.
Firlit said she has not seen her son since Aug. 10, and that Shapiro, a Cook County judge, initially revoked her parenting time with her son until she gets vaccinated. Firlit has been divorced from her husband for several years, and said she doesn’t want to get the vaccine due to previous adverse reactions to vaccines. Shapiro reversed his decision on Monday after the story gained traction in the media, which Fernholz credits with helping Firlit's case. "I think there’s been a lot of media outcry," Fernholz said. "The divorce bar here in Illinois has been responding when they saw it on the news." Firlit told Fox that she "was surprised" by the judge’s reversal, "but my reaction is I’m grateful." Others say the judge's motive in reversing the order was more complex: an attorney representing Firlit's son contends that the judge’s initial decision to bar Firlit from seeing her son was more complicated than her refusing the coronavirus vaccine. "The judge needs to look out for the best interest of the child," said attorney Michael Bender, saying Firlit’s behavior during the hearing was "volatile." "He was seeing something that clearly said to him, 'There is an endangerment to the child right now.' And we’re gonna act on it," Bender said. Of course, Firlit insists the judge's initial decision was wrong, and that the notion that she's an "endangerment" to her child is ridiculous. "It definitely was not a reason to take my child away from me," Firlit said. "I’m not an endangerment to him. Nothing was filed about that. Nothing that we were in the hearing for had anything to do with it."