Court Opinion

ID: 9949410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 16:11:41.823577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:48.835873
License: Public Domain

J-A28006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    MEGAN ASPLUNDH                             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    TIMOTHY ANTONIO PENDERGRASS                :   No. 1904 EDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 8, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at
                             No(s): 2016-26394

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                  FILED MARCH 11, 2024

       Appellant, Megan Asplundh (Mother), appeals from the order entered

on June 8, 2023,1 granting a petition for the modification of custody filed by

Timothy Antonio Pendergrass (Father) to vaccinate the parties’ minor,

10-year-old     daughter,     N.P   (Child),   against   Covid-19.   Upon   careful

consideration, we affirm.

       We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows. Father and Mother were married in July 2012. In 2016, Mother filed

a complaint for divorce. In her complaint, Mother requested primary physical
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Although Mother purports to appeal from the trial court’s July 12, 2023
decision denying her motion for reconsideration, the appeal properly lies from
the order entered on June 8, 2023 which resolved all outstanding issues. See
Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1) (stating, a final order is one that “disposes of all claims
and all parties.”). As such, we have changed the caption accordingly.
J-A28006-23

custody and shared legal custody of Child. At a conciliation conference, the

parties submitted written stipulations regarding a vaccination schedule for

Child.2 On June 1, 2017, following a subsequent hearing before the trial court,

the court entered an order granting Mother primary physical custody and

Father partial physical custody, and awarding shared legal custody of Child.

The previously agreed 2017 vaccination stipulations were incorporated into

the custody order.

       On February 1, 2022, Father filed a petition to modify custody,

requesting that Child be vaccinated against Covid-19. On March 10, 2023,

Mother filed an answer and counterclaim objecting to modification of the prior

vaccination stipulations based, inter alia, upon family medical history. The

trial court held a five-day hearing on the matter commencing on October 26,

2022. Both Mother and Father testified. The parties stipulated that Child’s

school did not require student Covid-19 vaccinations.       Father presented

written documentation from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) showing its

vaccine recommendations and schedules regarding Covid-19.              Mother

presented the testimony of Elizabeth Mumper, M.D. (Dr. Mumper), an expert

in pediatrics and child vaccination.

____________________________________________

2  At the time of the 2017 conciliation, Child had not been immunized and the
parties agreed, inter alia, to comply with the vaccination requirements of
Child’s school, attend Child’s vaccination appointments together, and set
limited parameters for treatments administered after vaccination, including
receiving a second medical opinion in the event of adverse reactions. See
Exhibit A, Amended Custody Order, 6/8/2023, at ¶¶ 1-7.

                                           -2-
J-A28006-23

      More specifically, the trial court summarized the evidence presented as

follows:

      Father testified that he sought to pursue a Covid-19 vaccination
      for [] Child because (i) the vaccine has been proven safe and
      effective, (ii) there is a social responsibility to do everything [] to
      mitigate the effects of the disease collectively and (iii) Covid [was]
      coming back in the fall and [Father was expecting] a newborn child
      [and] want[ed] Child to be able to enjoy what it [felt] like to be a
      big sister and not have any stresses or any other issues [] that
      would impact [] how precious that experience [would] be.

      Father testified that he would have preferred that [] Child resume
      in-person schooling in January 2021 because the benefits of
      socialization   outweighed     potential    risks   of   contracting
      coronavirus. Father further testified that he took [] Child to indoor
      dining as prescribed by [] health care officials and establishments
      and followed masking restrictions generally. And, Father testified
      that he was not comfortable with the vaccination stipulations
      created in 2017 (which he claimed [were] imposed as part of the
      custody proceeding) and was requesting that [they] be amended.

      Mother testified to a number of concerns that she had about
      vaccinations in general and the Covid-19 vaccine specifically.
      Mother expressed concern in general about the vaccinations due
      to Mother’s medical history of [irritable bowel syndrome], food
      sensitivities, seasonal allergies, food allergies, [and] migraines[.]
      Mother testified that she believed the vaccination stipulations to
      be a compromise between her and Father[] which allowed [] Child
      to have the required vaccinations for schooling but not to rehash
      the matter with respect to new vaccines or developments. Mother
      also specifically testified that she was concerned that the Covid
      vaccine [] had, in the first month[,] more reactions than all the
      other vaccines combined. Finally, Mother testified [that] Covid-19
      cases within [] Child’s school [] was encouragingly low in the
      student population [as of] February 2023.

      Both parties acknowledged that [] Child’s school [] did not require
      the Covid-19 vaccination for students. However, Father produced
      an e-mail from [the school] dated August 6, 2021 regarding []
      Covid-19 procedures for the 2021-2022 school year. The email
      provided that it [was] essential that all medically eligible members

                                       -3-
J-A28006-23

     of [the] community, faculty and staff, children and family
     members be vaccinated to protect themselves and others.

     Mother offered Dr. Mumper as an expert in the field of pediatrics
     and the Covid-19 vaccination in children. Dr. Mumper testified
     with respect to the Covid-19 virus and vaccination generally and
     [] Child’s potential reactions specifically. Dr. Mumper testified
     that children in general [were] at a very, very low risk of death
     from Covid or serious side effects from Covid. She further testified
     that she had reviewed [] Child’s medical records and concluded
     that for a healthy child[,] like Child[,] her risk based on the CDC
     [data] would be about one in [2.5] million deaths. Dr. Mumper
     concluded that the risk[s] of the vaccine[,] in [her] best medical
     judgment[,] far outweigh[ed] the risk that she would face from
     Covid itself.

     Dr. Mumper further testified about several cases of reactions from
     the Covid-19 vaccine noted in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting
     System (“VAERS”) which, at the time of her testimony, had over
     [1.5] million reports of various types of side effects.         On
     cross-examination, Dr. Mumper acknowledged that anybody can
     file a [VAERS] report [after] which the CDC reviews the report.
     She testified that there[ is] a backlog [of] thousands of reports
     from 2022 that the CDC has not reviewed. Dr. Mumper also
     acknowledged that nearly [80%] of the deaths [listed on] VAERS
     [concerned] persons aged [60] or older or people who have
     underlying [medical] conditions.

     Dr. Mumper testified on cross-examination that she was aware of
     the CDC recommendation that someone of [] Child’s age should
     be vaccinated for Covid-19 and that the latest CDC
     recommendations [were issued in] October [] 2022.          [Dr.
     Mumper] disagree[d] with that recommendation. Dr. Mumper[,
     however,] was not licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania
     and had not examined nor seen [] Child in person or remotely.

     After the attorneys completed their questioning, the [trial] court
     asked some questions of Dr. Mumper. Specifically, the court
     asked Dr. Mumper to reconcile the fact that her opinions regarding
     Covid-19 vaccinations for children [were] in contrast to the
     recommendations of the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration
     (“FDA”) and the Nations Institutes of Health (“NIH”) – each of
     which recommend[ed] Covid-19 vaccinations for children. Dr.
     Mumper testified that [it was] hard to believe [she] would
     disagree with people in those agencies but stated that government

                                    -4-
J-A28006-23

       agencies are intimately intertwined with the pharmaceutical
       industry and may be generally biased towards vaccines for
       financial reasons. The court then questioned Dr. Mumper about
       the Mayo Clinic, a non-government entity, which also
       recommends vaccination for children; Dr. Mumper acknowledged
       the Mayo[] Clinic’s position [but] testified [the policy was] wrong
       in regards to children.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/2023, at 2-4 (unnecessary capitalization, record

citations, quotations, and original brackets omitted).

       On June 6, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting Father relief

and directing the parties to vaccinate Child for Covid-19 based upon the

recommendations of the CDC. On June 8, 2023, the trial court amended the

June 6, 2023 order to attach the parties’ 2017 vaccination stipulations as an

exhibit. On June 9, 2023, after Mother filed a request for reconsideration and

stay, the trial court granted a partial stay regarding vaccination, pending

argument on reconsideration. On July 7, 2023, the trial court held a hearing.

On July 12, 2023, the trial court granted a partial stay from vaccinating Child

for Covid-19 pending an appeal with this Court, but otherwise denied Mother’s

request for modification of the June 8, 2023 custody order. This timely appeal

resulted.3

       On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for our review:

       1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it ordered [] Child
          to be vaccinated against Covid-19 when evidence at trial about
____________________________________________

3  On July 17, 2023, Mother filed a notice of appeal and an accompanying
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
on September 8, 2023. Father has not appealed and did not file an appellate
brief in response to Mother’s submission.

                                           -5-
J-A28006-23

         the parties’ 2017 vaccination stipulations, [] Child’s health and
         family medical history, and Mother’s significant concerns about
         [] Child receiving the Covid-19 vaccine, all supported one
         conclusion that it was not in the best interest of [] Child to
         vaccinate her against Covid-19?

      2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter of
         law when it rejected the uncontradicted expert opinion of
         Mother’s expert, Dr. Mumper, that the Covid-19 vaccination is
         not in the best interest of [] Child?

      3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or err as a matter of law
         when it concluded that the CDC’s general recommendations
         about the Covid-19 vaccine outweighed Mother’s testimony
         and Dr. Mumper’s expert opinion about the best interest of this
         child?

      4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and err as a matter of
         law when it concluded that [] Child should receive the Covid-19
         vaccine despite evidence that [] Child’s school does not require
         the vaccine?

Mother’s Brief at 6-7 (some capitalization omitted).

      Mother’s four issues are inter-related, and we will examine them

together. Essentially, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion

by ordering that Child be vaccinated against Covid-19 “when evidence at trial

about the parties’ 2017 vaccination stipulations, the Child’s health and family

medical history, and Mother’s significant concerns about [] Child receiving the

Covid-19 vaccine all supported the conclusion that it was not in the best

interest of [] Child[.]” Id. at 32 (superfluous capitalization omitted).      She

asserts that “the parties specifically limited vaccines” Child would receive, and

the Covid-19 vaccine is “a brand[-]new vaccine with limited research and has

produced significant adverse reactions.” Id. at 39. Mother opines that “the

parties have demonstrated a clear history of protecting [] Child’s health by

                                      -6-
J-A28006-23

limiting her exposure to vaccines to only those required for school [and, here,

i]t is undisputed that [] Child’s school does not require the Covid-19 vaccine.”

Id. at 32-33. Mother relies on an unpublished decision from this Court, P.M.

v. L.M., 1637 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 2020) to argue that the trial court “failed

to defer to Mother’s strongly held beliefs, the parties’ agreement to limit []

Child’s vaccines, Mother’s individual and family medical history, and Mother’s

concerns regarding [] Child receiving certain vaccines, a position Mother has

held since [] Child was born.” Id. at 38. Mother further contends that the

trial court abused its discretion “when it rejected the uncontradicted expert

opinion of Mother’s expert, Dr. Mumper, that the Covid-19 vaccination is not

in the best interest of [] Child” when “Father did not present any expert

witness, reports, or any other [competing] evidence or testimony[.]” Id. at

33.   Mother argues that it is an abuse of discretion to “dismiss as

unpersuasive, and to totally discount uncontradicted expert testimony.” Id.

at 43, citing L.L.B v. T.R.B., 283 A.3d 859, 865 (Pa. Super. 2022); M.A.T. v.

G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11, 12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc).        Mother suggests that

the trial court erred by stating that Dr. Mumper testified that Child is “a healthy

child.” Mother’s Brief at 47. Instead, Mother posits that “Dr. Mumper testified

that [] Child is a healthy child with regard to [] risk of death if [] Child were

to contract Covid-19” as compared with the risks associated with receiving the

vaccine. Id. at 47.      “In other words, [Child]’s health conditions, such as

frequent stomach issues, headaches, blood in her stool, and early pubescence

do not impact [] Child’s risk of death if she were to contract Covid-19,

                                       -7-
J-A28006-23

however, these same conditions do raise serious risks and concerns if [] Child

were to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, as set forth in detail in Dr. Mumper’s

testimony and report.” Id. at 48; see also id. at 12 (“As an infant, [] Child

suffered from Food-Protein-Induced Enterocolitis, a condition triggered by the

consumption of eggs and products containing eggs [] which includes certain

vaccines” and “Mother wanted to delay [] vaccines until [] Child was over all

of the symptoms[.]”). Mother also maintains that it was erroneous for the

trial court to rely on “the CDC’s general recommendations about the Covid-19

vaccine” as presented by Father because there was no evidence that “the CDC

recommendation is appropriate for this [particular c]hild.”      Id.    As such,

Mother requests that we vacate and reverse the trial court’s decision regarding

Covid-19 vaccination. Id. at 58.

      Our standard of review is well-settled:

      We review a trial court's determination in a custody case for an
      abuse of discretion, and our scope of review is broad. Because
      we cannot make independent factual determinations, we must
      accept the findings of the trial court that are supported by the
      evidence. We defer to the trial judge regarding credibility and the
      weight of the evidence. The trial judge's deductions or inferences
      from its factual findings, however, do not bind this Court. We may
      reject the trial court's conclusions only if they involve an error of
      law or are unreasonable in light of its factual findings.

S.W.D. v. S.A.R., 96 A.3d 396, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal citations

omitted).

      Moreover:

      [A] broad scope of review should not be construed as providing
      the reviewing panel with a license to nullify the fact-finding

                                      -8-
J-A28006-23

      functions of the court of first instance. As an appellate Court, we
      are empowered to determine whether the trial court's
      incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions,
      but may not interfere with those conclusions unless they are
      unreasonable in view of the trial court's findings, and, thus,
      represent a gross abuse of discretion. Custody decisions are to
      be made on the basis of the child's best interests.

                           *           *            *

      It is not this Court's function to determine whether the trial court
      reached the “right” decision; rather, we must consider whether,
      “based on the evidence presented, given due deference to the trial
      court's weight and credibility determinations,” the trial court erred
      or abused its discretion in [making decisions affecting] custody[.]

King v. King, 889 A.2d 630, 632 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal citations and

quotations omitted).

      Generally, when rendering a decision affecting custody, the trial court is

required to examine the sixteen factors under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328(a) of the

Child Custody Act to determine the best interests of the children, however,

      [w]e long have recognized that, when parties share legal custody
      of a child, they may reach an impasse in making decisions for the
      child that implicate custody. When that happens, the parties turn
      to the trial court to decide their impasse. See, e.g., Staub v.
      Staub, 960 A.2d 848 (Pa. Super. 2008) (deciding between public
      and home schooling); Fox v. Garzilli, 875 A.2d 1104 (Pa. Super.
      2005) (ordering that children would attend school in mother's
      school district); Dolan v. Dolan, 548 A.2d 632 (Pa. Super. 1988)
      (deciding between public and parochial school). This type of court
      intervention does not affect the form of custody and hence, the
      5328(a) best interest factors do not all have to be considered.

S.W.D, 96 A.3d at 404.

      “The paramount concern in a child custody case is the best interests of

the child, based on a consideration of all factors that legitimately affect the

                                      -9-
J-A28006-23

child's physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.”     Wheeler v.

Mazur, 793 A.2d 929, 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).                 “This

determination is to be made on a case-by-case basis.” Id. (citation omitted).

“Only where it finds that the custody order is manifestly unreasonable as

shown by the evidence of record will an appellate court interfere with the trial

court's determination.”     Id. (citation, quotations, and original brackets

omitted).

      Furthermore, regarding expert testimony in child custody cases:

      The trial court [is] under no obligation to delegate its
      decision-making authority to [an expert]. See, e.g., K.W.B. v.
      E.A.B., 698 A.2d 609, 613 (Pa. Super. 1997). It is an abuse of
      discretion, however, for a trial court to dismiss “as unpersuasive,
      and to totally discount, uncontradicted expert testimony.”
      Murphey [v. Hatala], 504 A.2d [917,] 922 [(Pa. Super. 1986);
      see also Rinehimer v. Rinehimer, 485 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa.
      Super. 1984) (while not required to accept their conclusions, “the
      lower court was obligated to consider the testimony of the two
      experts.”); Straub v. Tyahla, 418 A.2d 472, 476 (Pa. Super.
      1980) (“We conclude that the lower court abused its discretion in
      totally discounting as unpersuasive the expert opinion testimony
      of appellant's testifying psychiatrist.”). Accordingly, while a trial
      court is not required to accept the conclusions of an expert witness
      in a child custody case, it must consider them, and if the trial court
      chooses not to follow the expert's recommendations, its
      independent decision must be supported by competent evidence
      of record. See Nomland v. Nomland, 813 A.2d 850, 854 (Pa.
      Super. 2002) (“To say that a court cannot discount uncontradicted
      evidence, however, is merely to rephrase the requirement that a
      child custody court's conclusion have competent evidence to
      support it. So long as the trial court's conclusions are founded in
      the record, the lower court was not obligated to accept the
      conclusions of the experts.”) (citations and quotation marks
      omitted).

M.A.T., 989 A.2d at 19–20 (original brackets omitted).

                                     - 10 -
J-A28006-23

      Here, the trial court initially determined that the parties’ 2017

vaccination stipulations were not binding because “Covid-19 was not in

existence at the time of June 1, 2017 custody order when the parties agreed

to the vaccine stipulations” and that pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5338, a party

may petition for modification of “a custody order to serve the best interest of

the child.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/8/2023, at 8.       Thereafter, the trial court

ultimately concluded:

      [B]oth parties offered testimony and evidence with respect to
      whether [] Child should be ordered to receive the Covid-19
      vaccine. Mother testified that, in her opinion, the Covid-19
      vaccine was not in [] Child’s best interest. Mother further offered
      expert testimony from Dr. Mumper who opined that, generally,
      Child should not be vaccinated for Covid-19.

      Father testified that, in his opinion, [] Child should be vaccinated
      for Covid-19. Father offered documentation from [both] the CDC
      website setting forth its recommended Covid-19 vaccination
      schedule including for persons of [] Child’s age and from [Child’s
      school,] which recommended, inter alia, that students be
      vaccinated.

      The [trial c]ourt ultimately concluded that Father’s testimony and
      evidence were more persuasive and that Father’s requested relief
      was in [] Child’s best interest.

                          *            *           *

      It is true that Mother offered an expert witness to testify to her
      position regarding the Covid-19 vaccine and Father offered no
      such expert testimony. It is axiomatic, however, that custodial
      issues are not determined solely on the basis of whether one side
      (as opposed to both) offers an expert witness. Moreover, [the
      trial c]ourt is not bound by the opinion of an expert witness.

                          *            *           *

      Dr. Mumper testified that she reviewed [] Child’s medical records
      and concluded “for a healthy child like Child[,] her risk based on

                                     - 11 -
J-A28006-23

     the CDC numbers would be about one in [2.5] million deaths.” Dr.
     Mumper’s ultimate opinion was that “the risk of the vaccine in my
     best medical judgment far outweigh the risk that she would face
     from Covid itself.”

     On cross-examination, Dr. Mumper testified that she was not
     licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. Also, of note, she
     testified that she had not examined nor seen [] Child in person or
     remotely. Dr. Mumper testified that she was aware of the CDC
     recommendation that someone of [] Child’s age should be
     vaccinated for Covid-19 but testified [that “she] disagree[d] with
     that recommendation.”

     Dr. Mumper acknowledged that her opinion with respect to the
     Covid-19 vaccination is contradictory to that of CDC, FDA, and the
     NIH – each of which have recommended Covid-19 vaccinations for
     children.   She opined that these government agencies are
     “intimately entwined with the pharmaceutical industry” and may
     be generally biased towards vaccines for financial reasons.

     Dr. Mumper also acknowledged that her opinion with respect to
     the Covid-19 vaccination is contrary to the Mayo Clinic, a non-
     government entity, which also recommends vaccination for
     children. Dr. Mumper acknowledged the Mayo Clinic’s position and
     testified [that “she thought] the May Clinic is getting it wrong in
     regards to children.”

     The [trial c]ourt carefully considered Dr. Mumper’s opinions and
     testimony with respect to the Covid-19 vaccination for [] Child in
     reaching its decision. Ultimately, the [trial c]ourt did not find her
     testimony to be persuasive on this issue and decided not to accept
     her conclusions.

     A trial court must consider, but need not accept, the conclusions
     of an expert witness in a child custody case. If the trial court
     rejects the recommendation, its independent decision must be
     supported by “competent evidence” of record.

     There was ample “competent evidence” to support Father’s
     position that it was in [] Child’s best interest to follow the CDC
     guidelines with respect to Covid-19 vaccinations. Father testified
     to his well-reasoned opinion and offered evidence that the CDC
     and [] Child’s school recommended that children her age receive
     the vaccination. Dr. Mumper conceded in her testimony that her
     opinion was contrary to those of the CDC, FDA, NIH, and the Mayo
     Clinic – which is certainly “competent evidence” of record. The

                                    - 12 -
J-A28006-23

      reality is that both parties produced competent evidence and,
      after careful consideration of the totality of the record, the [trial
      c]ourt agreed with the position of Father (corroborated by the
      positions of the CDC, FDA, NIH, FDA, and the Mayo Clinic).

      Tasked with fashioning an appropriate order, the [trial c]ourt
      determined that since the parents could not otherwise agree on a
      Covid-19 vaccination protocol for [] Child, it was in [] Child’s best
      interest for the parents to comply with the recommendations of
      the CDC – the national public health agency of the United States.
      This decision is supported by the record in this case.

Id. at 9-11 (case citations, record citations, and original brackets omitted).

      We agree with the trial court’s assessment and, upon independent

review of the record, note the following. Father testified “[d]espite extensive

medical testing to date, there have been no allergies or sensitivities identified”

with Child. N.T., 10/26/2022, at 195. He was not “aware of her ever [testing

positive] for any allergies or autoimmune disorders[.]” Id. Child’s “stomach

problems [we]re the result of inadequate hydration.”        Id. at 230.    Father

further testified, unequivocally and without contradiction, that “[t]here's never

been an adverse reaction [from Child] to any form of a medical treatment

including vaccines.” Id. at 223. Additionally, Mother has never requested a

second opinion for questions pertaining to adverse vaccine reactions, as set

forth in the parties’ 2017 vaccination stipulations, “[b]ecause there has not

been one.” Id. at 224. Dr. Mumper testified that because Child was born by

C-section, had eczema as an infant and toddler, and had “at least one

wheezing fit,” Dr. Mumper was “concerned that [Child] is [skewed] towards

allergy and autoimmunity and skewed away from an immune system which is

very robust at treating infection.” N.T., 10/27/2022, at 38-39; id. at 52. Dr.

                                     - 13 -
J-A28006-23

Mumper agreed that, in reviewing Child’s medical records, Child had no known

allergies to the 17 prior vaccines already administered to her. Id. at 46-48;

see also id. at 49 (“[Child] has had Hepatitis B, three vaccines; she's had

DTaP, four vaccines; three Polio vaccines; two MMR vaccines; two Varicella

vaccines; and two Hepatitis A vaccines.”); see also id. at 77 (Dr. Mumper

agrees Child has never tested positive for any allergies or negativity to

vaccines); see also id. at 79 (Dr. Mumper was “commenting about [Child’s]

immune system in infancy” when testifying about Child’s eczema, but “did not

say [] that [Child] was a sickly child now who had multiple illnesses or some

type of immune deficiency.”). Mother testified that Child “had what's called

Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis as an infant that was triggered by eggs,

and her pediatrician in Las Vegas couldn't tell [] which vaccines had egg in

them or not.    So [Mother] wait[ed] until [Child] was over all of those

symptoms of Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis which seemed to stop when

she was around two [years of age].” N.T., 2/15/2023, at 84-85.

     As mentioned, Father presented Covid-19 vaccine guidelines from the

CDC. See Exhibit F-29.    The CDC guidelines recommend that children from

six to 12 years of age be vaccinated against Covid-19 “based on age and

medical condition and vaccine composition.”    Id.   The guidelines delineate

specific vaccine doses “for most people” and for “those who are moderately or

severely immunocompromised.” Id. (superfluous capitalization omitted). In

this case, as set forth above, there was no evidence presented that Child is

moderately or severely immunocompromised, but even if she were, the CDC

                                   - 14 -
J-A28006-23

recommends        that   children    who       are   moderately     or    severely

immunocompromised be immunized.            The record reveals that Child has no

known allergies or autoimmune disorders, her enterocolitis and sensitivity to

eggs resolved, she has never had an allergic reaction to previously

administered vaccines, and Dr. Mumper generally agreed that Child is healthy

overall.    As such, the trial court considered the conclusions of Dr. Mumper,

but chose not to follow or adopt the expert's recommendations.             As the

testimony set forth above reveals, the trial court’s independent decision was

supported by competent evidence of record. Accordingly, we find that the

trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the parties to vaccinate Child

against Covid-19.

       Finally, we reject Mother’s reliance on this Court’s unpublished,

non-precedential decision in P.M.     In P.M., the trial court granted the mother

in that matter sole legal custody and she did not want to have her children

vaccinated “due to her belief that her first child’s death was vaccine-related.”

See P.M. supra at *22.       However, in that case, the “[m]other introduced

evidence that [the f]ather did not object to the [c]hildren remaining

unvaccinated prior to the parties’ separation and that he was using this issue

as a threat in an attempt to coerce [] settle[ment of] the custody issues” and,

furthermore, that the father admitted that “if custody issues were settled, no

one had to be vaccinated.” Id. (record citation omitted).         Ultimately, the

P.M. “[C]ourt left open the option to order vaccination in the future.” Id. at

*23.       The unpublished decision in P.M. is not controlling, but also

                                      - 15 -
J-A28006-23

distinguishable. In P.M., the mother was granted sole legal custody of the

parties’ children; whereas, in this case, Mother and Father have shared legal

custody, do not agree about vaccinating Child for Covid-19, and, therefore,

turned to the trial court to decide their impasse.    Moreover, there is also no

evidence in this appeal which suggests that Child had adverse reactions to

previous vaccinations. Accordingly, Mother’s reliance on P.M. is unavailing.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Mother is not entitled to relief.

      Order affirmed.

Date: 3/11/2024

                                      - 16 -