Father and Mother don't want to get their children vaccinated. Both children have been declared dependents of the court, and for good reason. Among other things: "DSS filed a juvenile dependency petition
(§ 300, subd. (b)(1)), alleging Father and A.P. (Mother) neglected
and failed to protect their children. Mother
had a history of substance abuse and mental illness. She had
recently given birth to E.P. Both Mother and E.P. had tested
positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. DSS alleged
Father had a history of substance abuse and mental illness and
was recently incarcerated."
Given this history, I'll be honest and say that I'm at least slightly inclined to not give the parent's desires on this issue a massive amount of weight. (*Understatement Alert*)
As to whether the children should be vaccinated, the trial court has to weigh the testimony of two medical professionals. On the one hand, there's the physician who's currently treating the children. She says they should be vaccinated. "[T]he DSS social worker testified that both S.P.’s and
F.P.’s 'pediatricians are recommending that they receive their
vaccinations.' DSS also submitted letters from Dr. Kronstad, a current
treating doctor of the children. She was a board-certified
pediatrician. She stated, '[N]o medical condition currently exists
that would prevent [the children] from receiving vaccinations as
recommended by the [American Academy of Pediatrics] and
CDC.' She described the specific vaccinations
that S.P. and F.P. needed to bring them “up to date” on their
vaccines. She set forth a timetable for the specific types of shots
they needed and the time periods during which they had to be
administered. This was strong evidence to support findings that
the children needed vaccinations and the exemptions were not
currently valid. There is usually 'no better evidence of the state
of one’s health” than the medical opinions from the patient’s
current treating doctor.' (Gunn v. Employment Development Dept.
(1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 658, 664, fn. 6.)"
On the other hand, there's a letter from Dr. Johnnie Ham. Here's what the opinion says about him:
"Father told DSS that on March 11, 2018, Dr.
Johnnie Ham had issued letters stating his determination the
children were exempt from vaccinations. Ham wrote that the
children have 'a medical reason not to vaccinate,' but did not
state what that medical reason was. . . . Ham testified he saw the children once in March
2018 for 45 to 60 minutes. He said he is not a pediatrician and
did not have medical records from the children’s other doctors.
His examination was 'very brief.' He checked the children’s
temperatures and their eyes and had them move their arms. . . .
Ham was asked what was the medical condition that
supported the exemptions but did not describe that condition. He
said, “The law does not require that the child have a medical
condition. . . . [It] allows us to consider both the individual’s
medical history as well as family history.” In response to a
question about the children’s medical condition that supported an
exemption, Ham responded, “I did not see a medical condition
directly with either child.” The parents said members of the
family have had “allergies,” “asthma,” “autoimmune disease,” and
“mental disorders, including autism.” One family member had “a
negative vaccine reaction.”
Ham was asked, “Are you aware that the safety for
vaccinations is considered reliable?” Ham: “No, I’m not aware of
that.” In 2018, Ham issued 350 exemptions. For two children, he
charges a $290 fee for an exemption examination. . . .
The juvenile court said, “The reality is that Dr. Ham issued
the exemption on March 11, 2018, after receiving a request for an
exemption supported solely by an uncorroborated or unverified family history provided by the parents, and without anything
resembling a medical evaluation or examination of the minors.”
(Italics added.) “[Ham] does not take any blood or tissue samples
or anything of that nature. He does not conduct any neurological
exam. . . . He testified that neither child had an existing medical
condition at the time of his examination.” (Italics added.) The
court concluded, “To rely solely on the information provided by a
parent (the ‘family history’) without any rudimentary medical
evaluation is simply ripe for abuse and patently wrong.” . . . .
Ham testified that he had been disciplined by the Medical
Board of California for 'providing false documentation' and that
he was on probation for 10 years."
Hmmm. Which one would I find more credible? The board certified pediatrician who's the children's treating physician? Or the exemption-writing hack who's not even a pediatrician and is on disciplinary probation?
Boy. What a toughie.