Looking into a case in another thread got me thinking.
A lot of anti vaccine people were (not unexpectedly) angry about a ruling which gave the father the right to vaccinate their child.
So for this hypothetical, the mother wants zero vaccines and the father wants all recommended vaccines. Neither one will agree on a partial vaccine schedule. They have equal joint custody.
Obviously, a child cannot be vaccinated with the father and un vaccinated with the mother so one of them has to lose.
Now the question is not what your personal opinion on vaccines are. The question is: How do you think it should be decided? I feel like having a judge hear two sides from expert testimonies and then coming to a decision that he feels is in the best interest of the child is the best and really only way to go about this.
But judging from the many outraged responses to the ruling I have to wonder how else they think it should have been done?
How should it be decided?