When does not vaccinating your child become a danger to your childs health?

Vaccinating your child has become a hot button issue lately with all the potential negative side effects some vaccines have upon the nuerological development of the childs brain.  And therefore there have been a group of parents concerned about these effects and decided that it is a greater risk to vaccinate than to not vaccinate the child.

According to the Centers for Disease Control: Vaccines can prevent infectious diseases that once killed or harmed many infants, children, and adults. Without vaccines, your child is at risk for getting seriously ill and suffering pain, disability, and even death from diseases like measles and whooping cough. The main risks associated with getting vaccines are side effects, which are almost always mild (redness and swelling at the injection site) and go away within a few days. Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare and doctors and clinic staff are trained to deal with them. The disease-prevention benefits of getting vaccines are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children.

The California statutes give joint or sole legal custody rights to the parents who chose not to immunize their child as stated in Health and Safety Code section 120370.

If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt.

As far as what Courts will do when faced in Court with two parents or both parents who do not wish to vaccinate their child against any of the series of CDC serious viruses listed above, the Maine Superior Court stated that they would allow a vaccination of the children against the wishes of the parents even if the mother stated she didnt believe in viruses.

Therefore it begs the question of why there are a legitimate group of mothers and fathers who refuse to get their child vaccinated. As stated above the Family law court system must weight the pros and cons of the parents choice to vaccinate or to not vaccinate. But the overwhelming trends that can be seen all across the country that the ultimate goal any family law judicial system has is that of the best interest of the child.  And when using that best interest standard courts have overwhelmingly sided with the vaccine procedures because of it effectiveness compounded with it low side effect risk.

Although the anti vaccine movement still exists and still hold strong feelings against the vaccine recommendations it is clear from the Court hearings throughout the county that the minor side effects or the idea that my child will get autism as a result are not going to thwart a judicial officer from deciding what is the best interest of the child.