covid children kids
© Getty Images
Watching people fighting against having to wear masks or otherwise abide by legitimate public health guidelines and you have to wonder about their poor children.

Who's protecting them from this insanity?

Well, at least Ontario's family court is taking a dim view of separated parents who aren't acting in the best interests of their kids. In the latest case, a Toronto mother has won interim sole custody of her child — and $16,500 in legal costs — after a judge issued a scathing ruling against the father for dismissing COVID-19 as a "scamdemic."

"I am concerned about the respondent's refusal to take seriously the advice and guidance of experts, and particularly medical experts, when making decisions," noted Ontario Superior Court Justice Jasmine Akbarali in a ruling last week.

"During a pandemic that the respondent refuses to acknowledge is anything more than a "scamdemic," it is in (the child's) best interests that decisions about (their) health, schooling, and extra-curricular activities be made by the parent who accepts the public health concerns presented by the pandemic."

The identities of the parents and child are covered by a court-imposed publication ban.

While admitting he's a loving father, the mother went to court after becoming concerned her ex was endangering their child and other family members, by attending large rallies protesting government measures taken around the COVID-19 pandemic.

On social media, the judge said, the dad has been urging his followers to resist public health guidelines and is alleging the World Health Organization should be held accountable for genocide against humanity. He claims deaths from the flu shot are greater than deaths from COVID-19. He also boasts of hugging strangers.

No wonder the mom is worried.

The father told the court he believes the government has "over-reacted" to the virus and agrees his views could be called "unconventional." He also argued children are at low risk from COVID-19 and that he was healthy and posed no risk to his child.

Comment: Where's the lie?

When asked by the judge if he would abide by the Toronto bylaw to wear a mask in indoor public locations, he claimed he had pre-existing conditions that prevent him from wearing one.

Akbarali was not convinced.

"In my view, he intends to rely on a fictional health condition to avoid wearing a mask because he believes that the pandemic is a "scamdemic," she said.

Akbarali referred to a landmark decision at the start of the pandemic by colleague Justice Alex Pazaratz that warned the court would have to reconsider custody arrangements if a parent wasn't adhering to public health precautions.

"There will be zero tolerance for any parent who recklessly exposes a child (or members of the child's household) to any COVID-19 risk," he wrote in March in the now famous decision known as Ribeiro v. Wright.

Akbarali found this father falls into that category.

"I find that the respondent is not prepared to follow COVID-19 protocols in the future," she wrote.

"Despite the government and public health messages about the risk of COVID-19, despite the applicant's clear will to act in the face of her concerns, despite the case law that suggests that courts will take COVID-19 seriously, the respondent has preferred his agenda — politicizing a virus — over his parenting time with his (child)."

Due to his "complete failure and unwillingness to follow COVID-19 protocols, now or in the future," the judge ruled the dad can visit his child three times a week - but just by video. If the mom doesn't agree to resuming in-person visits, he can apply to the court - but only after he either tests negative for COVID or self-isolates for 14 days and also agrees to follow government and public health protocols in the future.

Because protecting your child's health is no hoax.