Chicago judge Shapiro takes child away from mother until she shoots herself
(i.dailymail.co.uk)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
This is the face of a monster.
If your children are afraid of monsters you can confidently tell them they don't hide under the bed, They wear robes and speak at podiums.
Agree. And when in their court say as little as possible.
Judge asked the mom if she was waxxed.
She should have given no answer.
She answered honestly and trusted a jewish judge.
https://nationalfile.com/cook-county-judge-strips-mother-of-parental-rights-since-she-has-not-been-vaccinated/
Why has a suicidal mum got custody? There is another side to that story. The vaccine is discrimination for sure. An excuse here. But my guess, she was a crackhead regardless. It is very hard not to award the mum with full rights, vaccinated is no excuse to parental rights, mum's automatically have them, automatically, unless she has priors. Then when questions of her history arise again, the judge simply allows the dad full custody. Denying her visitation. An excuse. He had custody, she was prevented access, seeing her kid without vaccination. Chicago judge. I am going with crackhead.
Nonsense. This vaccine, hasn't even been through court. He cannot make a decision, ruling, without this vaccine going to court. It simply wouldn't hold in other cases. It is ignorant and bias.
It isn't even a vaccine. It offers next to no immunisation for the disease. Vaccinating children who are some of the worst affected by side affects, life threatening side affects. But the disease COVID wasn't fatal to the healthy majority of them at about 99.999%.
Without the vaccine going to court. He has provided hearsay. A comparison that this vaccine is the same as all other childhood vaccines. Wrong that isn't the case. There is almost no comparison with it to other vaccines. Until it is licensed, also been through court, he hasn't made a precedent.
Civil Court, tediously is vastly exceptional. There is no precedent. Case by case. Suggestively making vaccine refusal neglect is curious to the circumstances. Again above there is no groundwork on this vaccine except hearsay.
She had priors. Look at her. There is far more to that story. Joint custody rarely happens. The mum normally gets full rights with the dad receiving only visitation privileges. What changed that. Priors. Often a history of drugs or otherwise, like bad parenting, bad credit. But a history was there to establish this ruling; Granting the dad full custody.
Of course the tabloid doesn't mention it. It plays with your emotions.
The vaccine was the excuse needed for negligence. But unless there was history, it is discrimination. It alone isn't enough to break the mum's rights. Dad's don't have them unless certain circumstances of wealth and privilege. But an alimony covers that much. In order for him to be custodian often takes priors or a history of neglect.