A father has been denied interim custody of his children because of his fervent anti-masking beliefs, CBC News reported on Friday.
Ontario Supreme Court Justice George W. King ruled that the man’s views of Coronavirus suggest he would not take sufficient precautions to ensure the safety of his children during the pandemic.
“The health and welfare of the children (and by extension their principal caregiver) should not be jeopardized because of [his] public behaviour in promotion of his opinions,” Justice King’s decision noted.
“I have concluded that the respondent’s behaviour is dictated by his world view. Everything else is subordinate to that view, including, but not limited to, his love for his children.”
The father was said to have previously posted his doubts around COVID-19 and participated in anti-lockdown events in the city.
“The long-term effects of the pandemic and of delayed treatments to persons with health conditions is currently unmeasurable,” Justice King wrote.
“All of this has occurred while a percentage of our population, including [the man], continue to deny the existence, significance and/or impact of COVID-19.”
According to CBC News’ report, “the man had custody of his children from Friday to Sunday afternoon but the justice’s new ruling only allows him to see his children three times a week at a supervised access centre where he would be required to abide by all the conditions imposed by the facility ‘as a precondition to access.'”
The court’s ruling has established a precedent that a person’s vocal doubts around COVID-19 can be a factor in child custody cases.
Furthermore, it suggests that the courts, and not the parents, are the final arbiter of what is best for your children, and what “world views” they should be exposed to in the family home.
Should the government decide a particular political opinion or religious belief poses a threat to your children’s well-being, and many have already made such an insinuation, what’s preventing them from removing your children from your custody too?
A dangerous precedent, indeed, and another digit on the scoreboard for the Communists.
