Chicago Judge Strips Mother Of Parental Rights For Being Unvaccinated

originally posted by: Phage
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.

oh come now phage... you claim so far he has the "authority" to do this unless an appeal says otherwise. but now "you reckon"? hmmmmm so now you fallen from using facts, to opinion, to "reckon" wow deny ignorance indeed

And, again, the decision is subject to appeal as such decisions are.

one i cannot find it in IL law that a VACCINE is grounds for automatic removal of custody

oh and BTW just because it can be appealed and even overturned does not make the initial ruling legal or even right

scrounger

a reply to: Alien Abduct

If not undoubtedly this will go to the U.S. Supreme Court and hopefully it gets thrown out there.

If the SCOTUS does not accept the case, the lower court decision stands.

originally posted by: Phage
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?

to violate law and previous rulings... NO

BTW just because he ruled the way does it make it right or legal

seems you keep ignoring that

btw did you give the judge that basically let off the guy for RAPING the girl behind the dumpster the same defense you give this one under "he has broad authority" and "can be appealed"?

did you give him the same effort justifying it?

scrounger

a reply to: carewemust

www.yahoo.com...

Scroll back up to restore default view.
Washington Examiner
Judge strips Chicago mother of parental rights for not being vaccinated
Jeremy Beaman
Sat, August 28, 2021, 10:28 AM·2 min read

A Chicago mother is appealing a court order that revoked her parental visiting rights because she declined to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

When Rebecca Firlit and her ex-husband of seven years participated in a child support hearing via video call on Aug. 10 for the purpose of determining the terms of shared custody of their 11-year-old son, Cook County Judge James Shapiro inquired about Firlit's vaccination status. After Firlit told the judge she did not receive the vaccine because of adverse reactions she has had to other vaccines, he ordered her to be stripped of her parental right to visit her son until she has been vaccinated.

"I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families. And I think it’s not in my son's best interest to be away from his mother," Firlit told local Fox-affiliate WFLD.

B

"It had nothing to do with what we were talking about," she said of her vaccination status. "He was placing his views on me and taking my son away from me."

Firlit's attorney, Annette Fernholz, said the issue was not within Shapiro's purview.

"You have to understand the father did not even bring this issue before the court. So, it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated," Fernholz said.

Jeffrey Leving, who represents the boy's father, expressed surprise by Shapiro's decision but said they were supportive.

What a coward the father is

a reply to: scrounger

seems you keep ignoring that

No. I keep pointing out that it can be appealed. And is, as a matter of fact.

did you give him the same effort justifying it?

What effort? What justification?

a reply to: norhoc

Look up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

WHAT?

a reply to: norhoc

The post above yours.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok ok ok. So this is what I am getting from all this. Being unvaccinated is a crime therefore it gives the judge jury and executioner the RIGHT to take your kid away? That is twisted as F…Makes no sense at all, and yet they may make it that rule as child endangerment.

F outta here.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

there is a reason we have legal precedence as determining what a judge SHOULD rule or is looking at it what is legal.

it is set this way to PREVENT ruling that clearly are wrong and should not require an appeal because it should have NEVER GOTTEN TO THAT POINT.


because if (as you and phage keep arguing) we follow the "authority to do so until overturned by appeal" blindly think of the abuse and just plain ILLEGAL actions judges can take .

like when the judge basically let off the guy who RAPED the drunk girl behind the dumpster.
along with cases of domestic violence where mandatory no bond and penalties due to the "authority" being openly abused.

but to be fair/truthful the court system has been quite bad at punishing judges who openly flaunt court rulings and law much less holding them accountable
until it is so bad and so many people hurt that they have no choice and even then dont do much.

but in anycase this sad over defending clearly a technicality and even at that ignoring case law / precedence is just sad

i also warn that by defending this i remind you that old saying

be careful what you wish for

be damn sorry when you get it

scrounger

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct

If not undoubtedly this will go to the U.S. Supreme Court and hopefully it gets thrown out there.

If the SCOTUS does not accept the case, the lower court decision stands.

That's true. And can you imagine the sh!t show if it goes to the SCOTUS and they stand with the judge? We will see judges all over the U.S. doing the same thing with no recourse. I think we might at that point have a SHTF scenario.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yeah. Like after the election and stuff.

That's some pretty slow #. But keep on keeping on.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: carewemust

www.yahoo.com...

Scroll back up to restore default view.
Washington Examiner
Judge strips Chicago mother of parental rights for not being vaccinated
Jeremy Beaman
Sat, August 28, 2021, 10:28 AM·2 min read

A Chicago mother is appealing a court order that revoked her parental visiting rights because she declined to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

When Rebecca Firlit and her ex-husband of seven years participated in a child support hearing via video call on Aug. 10 for the purpose of determining the terms of shared custody of their 11-year-old son, Cook County Judge James Shapiro inquired about Firlit's vaccination status. After Firlit told the judge she did not receive the vaccine because of adverse reactions she has had to other vaccines, he ordered her to be stripped of her parental right to visit her son until she has been vaccinated.

"I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families. And I think it’s not in my son's best interest to be away from his mother," Firlit told local Fox-affiliate WFLD.

B

"It had nothing to do with what we were talking about," she said of her vaccination status. "He was placing his views on me and taking my son away from me."

Firlit's attorney, Annette Fernholz, said the issue was not within Shapiro's purview.

"You have to understand the father did not even bring this issue before the court. So, it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated," Fernholz said.

Jeffrey Leving, who represents the boy's father, expressed surprise by Shapiro's decision but said they were supportive.

What a coward the father is

hey phage ... did you read this comment and THE QUOTED FACTS OF THE CASE?

because I DID

funny thing.. the other parent presented MEDICAL EVIDENCE that the child HAS ADVERSE REACTIONS to other vaccines and why this one was not given...


so the FACTS GIVEN is the child health would be in danger . How much neither you or i can know because we DONT KNOW the whole medical history.

But the judge then taking the FACTS still ruled this way...


so now given other FACTS how again can you JUSTIFY by any means his decision/ruling..

btw cut the BS your "not justifying" it...

now JUSTIFY HOW THIS IS LEGAL ...

btw i remind you AGAIN just because its appealable does not make it LEGAL ruling

scrounger

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: SeventhChapter

You ever notice Phage never outright takes a stance, he hides behind technicalities . At least there are those of us on here that will take a stance one way or the other.

No emotion
Incredible amount of info at disposal
Narrative driven
Highly skilled debate tactics

I’ll leave it at that. Do not want to jump to conclusions.
But I will say, most don’t have a clue who/what we are up against on this planet

a reply to: scrounger

But the judge then taking the FACTS still ruled this way...

Did you miss this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yeah. Like after the election and stuff.

That's some pretty slow #. But keep on keeping on.

Based on your replies me thinks your not really bothered about this, and your snarky replies are a little tiresome now. Do you have kids per chance? Ok obviously no need to answer that but for most parents this ruling is aweful, and the implications it could have in the future if it stands are terrible, surely you see that?

a reply to: scrounger

The other thing no one (like phage ) seems to take into account is how many people have to live with a judges decision that may be unlawful or bad because not everyone has the money it takes to hire attorneys and pay court fees to appeal and appeal and appeal all the way up to the SCOTUS.

The first step is asking the court to consider your claim, which carries a pretty substantial lawyering price-tag. “If you’re just paying hourly, and you are paying at D.C. rates, it would be somewhere from $100,000 to $250,000,” says attorney James Bopp, who has argued many big-deal cases in front of the justices.

And that’s just to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. If the justices agree, which they rarely do, then we’re talking really big numbers. “About the cheapest you can get away with at D.C. rates is $250,000,” Bopp says, “and then it ranges in the millions after that.”

But hey our justice system works ... am i right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

But the judge then taking the FACTS still ruled this way...

Did you miss this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

if deflection, not answering the direct question given, and repeating the same comments over and over to try to make them the truth is an olympic sport.. you win the gold over and over

but yet again you have your OPINION torpedoed and this time with facts and yet you cant see YOUR WRONG.

yes the judge did rule like this
but does not make it legal nor that he had the authority to do so under the law just because it can be appealed.


hell NOT ONCE have you even stated if this ruling was wrong..

but in continued defense of his doing it you are justifying it..

AGAIN where in IL law does a child WITH A KNOWN (or at least facts presented in court) have the LEGAL RIGHT to rule this way..

an Illegal ruling is still ILLEGAL AND WRONG no matter if it can be appealed or not..

btw under the law if precedence is set (or the law is explicit) they are not (following the law) allowed to rule this..
IF he is following the law

scrounger

I swear, some of yall have PDS.

P-dawg might be the Trump of ATS, but hes still just a dude on a message board

As for the story here.. I am very curious to see if there is more here. As far as I can tell, judges are getting a bit bonkers about tying rulings to vaccination status.

Seems to be overstepping their bounds, to say the very least. However, after seeing everything from city councils to DAs to other judges all moving in a similar direction.. It shouldnt be a huge surprise.

A great marker is whether or not the person in question openly espouses Sustainable Development Goals, or other UN & international NGO approved directives (which includes the WHO and WEF, among others).

As KonquestAbySS stated, it seems a lot of this is custom tailored to pissing people off. From rulings like this to Afghanistan..

a reply to: doorhandle

Based on your replies me thinks your not really bothered about this, and your snarky replies are a little tiresome now.

I've learned that extreme emotional attachment to things doesn't really benefit anyone. I find that separating fact from emotion can be more productive.

I have a daughter. A beautiful, intelligent, talented daughter. I provided my opinion of this decision. Does it change anything?

www.abovetopsecret.com...