NewsTalk 1010: Vaccine Passports & Co-Parenting - Featuring Alyssa Bach, Shulman & Partners

As vaccine passports and changing public health rules shaped daily life, many separated parents faced renewed conflict about COVID protocols and children’s vaccination. In a NewsTalk 1010 interview, Alyssa Bach, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, discussed how these disputes can place children in the middle, especially when one parent supports vaccination and the other strongly opposes it. She explained that the issue often intensifies once children are 12 and older, because vaccination status can affect access to indoor activities and social routines. Alyssa also highlighted how Ontario’s rules around medical decision making, the Health Care Consent Act, and the best interests of the child framework intersect with real-world clinic practices. The conversation focused on reducing escalation and keeping children out of adult conflict.

“You need to really take a step back and say what are my reasons for this, how is it impacting my child, because long term this battle will eventually be done but then what impact has it had on the child in the interim.”
— Alyssa Bach, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP

Alyssa described how COVID-related disagreements have become a major stress point for many separated families. She noted that children have, in some cases, become the battleground for former spouses who cannot agree on protocols and vaccination. She explained that the issue has become more urgent with vaccine passports and colder weather, because many activities shift indoors. For children aged 12 and up, vaccination status can affect whether they can participate in restaurants, sporting events, and movie theatres, which in turn affects what parents can do with their children during parenting time.

Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act was also explained to be an important factor. The Act recognizes that children of a certain age and maturity may have the ability to make decisions about treatment if they can provide informed consent. In practice, this becomes complicated when parents disagree. Alyssa noted that a child’s views can come into play, and that parental conflict around a child’s choice can create new areas of tension in co-parenting.

She also addressed the decision-making regime that applies between parents. Vaccination falls under medical decision making, so whether one parent can proceed depends on whether they have final decision making over medical issues or whether decisions must be made jointly. Alyssa also acknowledged a practical reality: clinics may not always ask about parenting arrangements in the way people expect, and policies can vary depending on governmental parameters and how clinics are instructed to operate.

When parents are at an impasse, Alyssa encouraged communication first. She described the importance of trying to negotiate and understand the underlying reasons behind a parent’s position, and she noted that involving a mediator may help. Court is typically a last resort because it is costly and time-consuming, but Alyssa explained that courts tend to follow government directions and protocols and focus on the best interests of the child.

Alyssa also discussed the emotional impact on children. She warned that using a child as leverage or engaging in petty conflict can have negative consequences, and she emphasized the importance of stepping back to consider how the fight is affecting the child in the moment. She described having frank conversations with clients about what positions are realistic and what is likely to succeed in court, with the goal of keeping conflict from escalating and protecting children from being pulled into adult disputes.