In a high-conflict family motion concerning a child's vaccination, the court held that a prior consent custody term prohibiting vaccination until age 12 did not bind the court where the child's best interests required a fresh assessment.
The court declined to involve the child directly, finding that parental conflict had already placed the child in the middle of the dispute and that her views could not be reasonably ascertained without harm.
Applying the law on expert admissibility, the court rejected the anti-vaccination opinion evidence tendered on behalf of the mother and accepted the infectious disease evidence filed through the amicus.
The court found that vaccination for measles, mumps, and rubella was in the child's best interests and gave the father authority to make that medical decision before the planned travel.
