The Prescription Nobody Can Enforce
By Michael Phillips | Father & Co.
A father in West Virginia wants his children vaccinated on schedule. Their mother, radicalized by online health content during the pandemic, doesn’t. The dispute burns through the marriage, then follows the family into divorce, and by the time the children come down with suspected measles, it isn’t a parenting disagreement anymore — it’s a custody case. That’s the story Ruby Cramer tells in The New Yorker this month, and it’s being read, understandably, as a story about the “Make America Healthy Again” movement: a portrait of what happens to a family when one parent falls down a vaccine-skeptic rabbit hole.
It’s also a story about family court, and on that front the politics of the particular illness are beside the point. Swap the jerseys and the mechanism doesn’t change. A father who pulls his kid off ADHD medication because he’s decided the diagnosis was manufactured. A mother who wants a teenager on puberty blockers over a father’s religious objections. A parent who takes a child to an unlicensed naturopath instead of the oncologist the other parent trusts. Different politics, different headlines, identical structural problem: family court has no reliable mechanism for resolving a live medical dispute between two legal custodians, and the gap between the order a judge signs and the order a judge can actually enforce becomes exactly the leverage point one parent needs to punish the other.
What “joint legal custody” actually promises
Most custody orders that grant joint legal custody say, in some form, that both parents must consent to major medical decisions. What they usually don’t say is what happens when consent doesn’t come — and that omission isn’t an oversight so much as an admission. Courts default to expecting parents to work it out, because the alternative is a judge substituting personal medical judgment for two parents’ judgment, case by case, indefinitely.
When parents can’t work it out, the fallback options are thin. A parenting plan may name an impasse-breaking mechanism — mediation, a tiebreaking parent, a pediatrician of record — but plans drafted at the time of divorce rarely anticipate the specific fight that shows up years later. Absent that, the only recourse is asking a judge to award one parent final decision-making authority on medical matters, which requires litigation, expert testimony, and months a sick child doesn’t reliably have. In one Ocean County, New Jersey case — an unpublished trial-court opinion, non-precedential but illustrative — a judge facing exactly that impasse had both parents’ proposed surgeons appear by phone to explain their competing approaches, only to find that neither one was medically wrong; the disagreement was a matter of professional discretion, not error, and the court still had to break the tie itself so the child could be treated on time. That’s not a backstop working as designed. That’s a system falling back on its most extraordinary tools because its ordinary ones failed.
The only real enforcement tool is a blunt one
Once a court does assign final medical decision-making authority to one parent, the only way to make the order stick is contempt. Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding — it can produce fines, attorney’s fees, or jail — and family court judges use it unevenly and reluctantly, especially against a parent who can frame their violation as protecting the child rather than defying the court. A parent who unilaterally schedules a specialist appointment, changes a medication, or — as in the Cramer piece — declines to vaccinate, is gambling that any consequence will land well after the underlying medical decision has already been made and can’t be undone.
That asymmetry cuts against whichever parent is currently following the order, not against whichever parent is “right” on the medicine. The parent complying with the court’s order has to wait for the legal process. The parent violating it has already gotten what they wanted. And when the fallout from that violation is dramatic enough — a case of suspected measles, a psychiatric crisis, a surgical complication — it becomes exhibit A in the next custody hearing, regardless of who actually created the risk.
“The parent complying with the court’s order has to wait for the legal process. The parent violating it has already gotten what they wanted.”
Evaluators and judges are being asked to referee medicine they weren’t trained to referee
Custody evaluators and guardians ad litem are equipped to assess parenting capacity, home environment, and a child’s expressed preferences. They are not, as a rule, equipped to adjudicate contested clinical questions — whether a specific surgical approach is standard of care, whether a psychiatric diagnosis is sound, whether a vaccine schedule carries meaningful individualized risk. When medical disagreement becomes the fight, courts end up either deferring to whichever parent’s expert sounds more credible in a hearing, or punting the underlying question back to the parents while ruling only on the process violation in front of them — who filed first, who acted unilaterally, who looks more cooperative on paper. The medical question that started the case often goes unresolved even after the custody question is decided.
This is the same structural blind spot Father & Co. has traced through the Diagnosis as Evidence reporting: family court routinely inherits high-stakes clinical judgments it has no institutional capacity to make, then resolves them procedurally instead of substantively, and calls the result a decision about the child’s welfare.
“Family court routinely inherits high-stakes clinical judgments it has no institutional capacity to make.”
The politics obscure a structure both sides will eventually need fixed
Because the current wave of these disputes runs mostly in one direction — a vaccine-hesitant parent against a vaccine-compliant one, downstream of the MAHA movement’s growth and a national MMR vaccination rate among kindergartners that fell to 92.4 percent this past school year, below the 95 percent threshold the CDC says is needed for herd immunity — it’s easy to read the fix as “give the pro-vaccine parent more power.” But a rule built to override a vaccine skeptic today is a rule that overrides a parent’s religious objection tomorrow, or a parent choosing a more conservative surgical option, or a parent resisting a psychiatric diagnosis they think was reached too fast. The swapped-jerseys test isn’t a rhetorical nicety here; it’s the only way to write an enforcement mechanism that doesn’t just hand a permanent advantage to whichever side currently has public-health opinion on its side.
“The swapped-jerseys test isn’t a rhetorical nicety here; it’s the only way to write an enforcement mechanism that doesn’t just hand a permanent advantage to whichever side currently has public-health opinion on its side.”
What family court actually needs is unglamorous: impasse-breaking clauses built into parenting plans at the time of divorce, before any specific medical fight exists to bias the drafting; a faster track for adjudicating discrete medical disputes that doesn’t require a full custody modification; and a contempt process that can move fast enough to matter before the decision it’s supposed to prevent has already been made. None of that requires resolving whether MMR vaccines are safe. It requires acknowledging that the court’s real failure in the Horrocks-Stelly case wasn’t picking the wrong side of a public health debate — it was never having a working process for either side to get a timely answer at all.
“The court’s real failure wasn’t picking the wrong side of a public-health debate — it was never having a working process for either side to get a timely answer at all.”
Sources
This piece draws on Ruby Cramer’s reporting for The New Yorker, “The MAHA Custody Battle” (September 7, 2026 issue), which profiles Michael Lee Horrocks and his ex-wife, Leah Stelly, of the eastern panhandle of West Virginia; the article itself sits behind a paywall that blocked direct access, so its central facts here are drawn from corroborating excerpts of Cramer’s own byline text, as reproduced by Muck Rack, along with secondary accounts in The Bulwark and the Irish Times. National vaccination figures come directly from the CDC’s measles data and research page, which tracks kindergarten MMR coverage and the annual measles case count. The discussion of medical decision-making impasses in custody law draws on an unpublished Superior Court of New Jersey opinion, M.T. v. D.T. (Ocean County, Chancery Division, Family Part), independently described in near-identical detail by the Weinberger Law Group and by Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti; because the underlying opinion is not publicly posted, it is cited here as illustrative and non-precedential rather than as binding authority, and its exact decision date has not been independently confirmed. The piece also references the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in Avren v. Garten, 289 Ga. 186 (2011), and the Tennessee Court of Appeals’ decision in Corenswet v. Corenswet, No. M2023-00642-COA-R3-CV, both confirmed against their official published opinions.
Keep Family & State Free
Family & State exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Family & State offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Family & State
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
