LOS ANGELES (CNS) — A judge said Wednesday he is inclined to deny a legal challenge to the Los Angeles Unified School District’s student coronavirus vaccine mandate brought by the father of a 12-year-old student, but he took the case under submission after a hearing.
What You Need To Know
- The judge did not say when he would issue a final ruling in the case brought by a father identified in court papers only as G.F.
- G.F. maintains the state and not the LAUSD is authorized to issue vaccination
- G.F. also maintains the district's requirement that unvaccinated pupils 12 years old and over attend independent learning classes outside campus violates the state Education Code
- The judge said the LAUSD has a constitutional mandate to provide a "safe and peaceful campus for its students and staff"
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff did not say when he would issue a final ruling in the case brought by a father identified in court papers only as G.F. The man filed the case Oct. 8 on behalf of himself and his son, a Science Academy STEM Magnet school student who is referred to in court papers as D.F.
G.F. maintains the state and not the LAUSD is authorized to issue vaccination and that the district’s requirement that unvaccinated pupils 12 years old and over attend independent learning classes outside campus violates the state Education Code.
In his tentative ruling explaining why he is leaning toward denying the petition, the judge said the LAUSD has a constitutional mandate to provide a “safe and peaceful campus for its students and staff” and that the district is therefore “permitted to take action to protect the health and safety of all students and staff.”
The LAUSD mandate does not deny a public education or educational services to any student who is not vaccinated against COVID-19, but says that unvaccinated students 12 years old and older will be limited to taking part in off-campus independent study or seeking some alternative means of instruction, the judge further wrote.
But in a sworn declaration, G.F. says he believes the vaccine could irreparably harm his son, who has already contracted and recovered from the coronavirus and may have strong natural immunity.
“Further, I worry that vaccinating him could prove even more dangerous now that he has had COVID-19,” G.F. says. “Among other things, I fear that the vaccination could overexcite his immune system and antibodies.”
Having weighed those risks against what he believes to be a “statistically minuscule risk” that his son will contract the coronavirus again, G.F. says he “vehemently objects to LAUSD’s attempt to force his vaccination.”
D.F. has received all other required childhood immunizations, according to his father.
In their court papers, LAUSD lawyers maintain that the court relief sought by G.F. and his son “fails on every conceivable level” and should be denied.
The proposed injunction “asks this court to ignore the life-threatening risks presented by COVID-19 and the corresponding threat it poses to public education...” the LAUSD attorneys argue in their court papers.