Global News: Divorced Parents & COVID - Featuring Laura Paris, Shulman & Partners

Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners, joined Global News to discuss a Hamilton family court decision involving a parenting dispute over COVID-19 vaccination for two children. The case raised a question many separated parents have faced during the pandemic: when parents disagree on medical decisions, how does a court determine what is in a child’s best interests. The host outlined the ruling and the judge’s broader comments about the limits of simply deferring to government guidance. Laura’s analysis focused on how family courts should approach evidence, how children’s views and preferences can factor into the outcome, and why context matters when one parent relies primarily on public health messaging while the other presents more detailed materials.

“What this judge has done very correctly is reminded us what the judge should be considering when making these decisions, and simply following the guidelines of the government, whether you agree with them or disagree with them, is not necessarily the end-all be-all in determining what the appropriate decision is on an issue like vaccines.”
— Laura Paris, Associate Lawyer, Shulman & Partners LLP

The segment began with the host describing a Hamilton-area court decision in which a judge sided with a mother who opposed vaccinating two of the parties’ children against COVID-19. The parents have three children, with the older child living with the father and the two younger children primarily residing with the mother. The ruling drew public attention because it touches on a recurring issue from the pandemic era: how courts should resolve medical decision-making disputes between separated parents, particularly when vaccination is involved.

Laura explained that family court decisions about children are guided by the best interests of the children, assessed using established criteria rather than a single blanket rule. In her view, the decision was significant because it pushed back against a pattern seen in some earlier vaccination cases, where courts took “judicial notice” of government protocols in a way that could minimize the role of evidence. She emphasized that government guidance may be relevant, but it should not replace the court’s obligation to evaluate the specific facts in front of it.

She highlighted several factors discussed during the segment that helped explain why the decision went the way it did. First, the children’s views and preferences were independently ascertained, and the children expressed that they did not want the vaccine. Second, the judge considered the mother’s history of parenting and her capacity to make appropriate decisions. The parties’ prior agreement, which recognized each parent’s ability to make decisions for the children in their care, mattered because it undermined the idea that the mother’s position alone showed she was incapable of acting in the children’s best interests.

Third, the segment contrasted the evidence each parent relied on. Laura noted that the father’s position leaned heavily on public health guidelines and appeared, in the judge’s view, to involve attempts to discredit the mother’s political views. By contrast, the mother presented more detailed materials supporting her concerns, which the judge regarded as reliable. Taken together, these points supported the finding that the children should not be vaccinated in these circumstances.

The conversation also addressed the practical limits of using professionals, such as social workers, to evaluate children’s views and whether influence is present. Laura acknowledged that these assessments are not perfect, but they are a tool family courts use to reduce harm, gather information in a structured way, and avoid placing children directly in conflict.

Listen to the full Global News segment here.

This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media  archive.