After days of criticism on social media and elsewhere, a Cook County judge has, for now, taken back his decision issued earlier in August stripping parental visitation rights from a mother after she told the judge she was not vaccinated against COVID-19.
On the morning of Monday, Aug. 30, Cook County Circuit Judge James Shapiro vacated the portion of an order he had issued Aug. 11 suspending “parenting time” from Rebecca Firlit, of Chicago.
At that time, the judge had ruled Firlit’s parental rights should be set aside, solely because she had not yet been vaccinated against COVID.
“(Firlit’s) parenting time … is hereby suspended … until (she) demonstrates sufficient proof to this Court or the Guardian ad Litem of vaccination against Covid-19,” Shapiro wrote on Aug. 11.
The judge cited no other reasons behind his decision to deny her access to her child.
Shapiro’s Aug. 11 decision went largely unnoticed until Aug. 27, when Fox 32 News in Chicago aired a report revealing the judge’s actions. It then quickly gained national notoriety, generating massive amounts of criticism for the judge.
Firlit had been in court with her ex-husband Matthew Duiven since 2013, as they continued their dispute over custody of and child support for their child.
Firlit is identified in court documents as Rebecca Duiven.
According to court documents, Firlit and Duiven had reached a joint parenting agreement for their child in June 2014, which was made enforceable under a judgment issued by a Cook County family law judge.
Firlit and Duiven returned to court before Judge Shapior to address Duiven’s apparent request for greater child support payments from Firlit. In late May, the judge had issued an order setting Aug. 10 as the date for a “hearing on child support and status on pending matters.”
The court documents indicate at no time did the judge indicate the parents’ vaccination status was an issue to be discussed in the case.
However, according to the report and court documents, the judge, acting on his own, asked Firlit from the bench at the hearing if she had yet been vaccinated against COVID.
After she said she had not, the judge acted, on his own motion, to strip parenting rights from Firlit until she became vaccinated.
Duiven had not requested any such action by the judge.
However, in the FOX 32 News report, his attorney said they supported the judge’s decision.
On Aug. 24, Firlit and her attorney, Annette Fernholz, of Chicago, filed a petition with the Illinois First District Appellate Court, asking the appeals court to reverse Shapiro’s actions.
In that appellate petition, Firlit noted the vaccination status of the parents had never been addressed to that point in the case, and Duiven had never raised it in any prior motions filed with the court.
She said Shapiro’s move to suspend her parenting rights, without even a hearing or a motion from her ex-husband, “exceeds the court’s authority.”
Firlit argued the judge appeared to have leaped to the conclusion that her vaccination status endangers the safety of her child, without first having a hearing to determine if that was the case, or allowing Firlit the opportunity to defend herself against any such accusations.
Further, she noted neither the federal government nor Illinois state government have mandated she receive the COVID vaccine.
“Illinois recognizes a common law right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment,” Firlit wrote in her petition.
“Rebecca (Firlit) has a common law and constitutional interest in self-determining what she puts into her body, meaning whether she accepts the COVID-19 vaccination or not. There is no basis for the circuit court judge (Shapiro) to make vaccination mandatory before a parent can exercise parenting time.”
The appellate court had yet to rule on whether to accept her petition and take up the case.
Following that petition and the criticism that has followed in the wake of Shapiro’s ruling becoming public knowledge, Shapiro – again, acting on his own motion – rescinded his order stripping Firlit of parenting time.
In his Aug. 30 ruling, Shapiro said his decision to vacate his prior order was “based on the absence of a pleading or hearing on serious endangerment pursuant.” This could potentially set the stage for further proceedings on the question of whether Firlit’s decision not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 represents a danger to her child sufficient to allow the court legal cover to compel her to get vaccinated by threatening to deny her access to her child unless she receives the vaccine.