The Weilheim district court, department for family matters, fell on January 13 a significant decision: A divorced couple argued over whether their child should be vaccinated against Covid. The mother supported the vaccination and therefore applied for sole decision-making power – the father opposed it. As part of the verdict, the court questioned the vaccination recommendations for children and came to the conclusion: The benefit of the vaccination does not outweigh the risk – the mother’s application was rejected.
According to the court, the recommendation of the STIKO would speak in favor of the vaccination, but you have to check independently whether this is in the best interests of the child. Accordingly, the serious restrictions in social life for the unvaccinated are a reason for the child’s Covid vaccination: According to their own statements, they felt excluded and an outsider. However: These restrictions no longer exist for your age group.
The court is critical of the fear of Covid-19 – in particular of one’s own illness with “Long Covid” and the possibility of infecting relatives. Literally it is stated:
Compared to other vaccines, the corona vaccines have an unusually high rate of reported adverse effects and deaths. This also applies in relation to the number of doses vaccinated.
For children and young people, on the other hand, there is little or no risk of a severe course of the corona infection. Children and adolescents usually have a mild or asymptomatic course when they are infected with SARS-CoV-2. The risk of dying from COVID-19 is almost zero for them.
According to studies, the described symptoms of “Long Covid” are attributed to the consequences of the lockdown and other restrictions. The argument of a possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to relatives is also scientifically correct and not valid:
The possibility of infecting others in the event of illness also exists in the case of vaccination, since the vaccination does not protect against infection… The court assumes that the vulnerable relatives of the child could be better protected by the child being protected from a visit can be tested there.
Accordingly, one comes to the conclusion that the child should not be burdened with the responsibility for the health of relatives – they should vaccinate themselves if necessary. One holds:
According to the court’s assessment, the risk of vaccination outweighs the benefits for the child and is therefore not in the best interests of the child. The mother’s application for sole decision-making powers was therefore to be rejected.
The critical lawyer Dr. Alexander Christ shared the conclusion on his Telegram-Channel and commented:
What is significant about this decision is that the treating pediatrician recommended vaccination of the child. Nevertheless, the father remained steadfast. The court critically examines the vaccination recommendation of the StIKo, the studies on the risks of vaccination and the possibilities of protecting vulnerable people in other ways. In this respect, the court has actually fulfilled its task of reviewing the specific individual case. Well-founded legal work still exists…!