In May, 2021, the director of the CDC endorsed the use of the COVID vaccine for 12 through 15-year-old adolescents and in late October, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the emergency use of the COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years of age. What happens when parents don’t agree about vaccinating their children? This can be particularly troublesome for separated parents whose court-approved plan requires they share medical care decision-making. A separated parent with a court approved plan who acts independently to have their child vaccinated risks action in court.

 Just in the past few months we’ve seen parents go to court over their child’s vaccination. Litigation is expensive, doesn’t deal with the emotions attached to this issue, and results in an imposed outcome with one parent winning and one parent losing.

 Some parents have been willing to try mediation. Canadian mediators Laura Tarcea and Eva DiGiammarino discussed this with Heather Hui-Litwin in recent YouTube videos. They stress first accepting each parent’s concerns. Some might agree to establish criteria to make a joint decision. Some might discuss what they will accept as credible information sources. In their experience, they’ve had success helping parents work together to compile a list of pros and cons and, if appropriate, meet jointly with their child’s doctor. Some parents may agree to delay a decision until some future firm date, such as after three months of data and information regarding the impact of this vaccine on children.

 More importantly, they help parents use agreed standards as to what’s in the best interest of the child. When appropriate, the child’s viewpoint is considered. They give as an example a teen who would not be able to play on his soccer team unless he was vaccinated. During the mediation, the parents had to consider the teen’s wishes.

Courts did exist during the Colonial Era, but attornies at the time were more likely to act as “dealmakers and problem solvers” rather than court lawyers.

How compromise through deal making and problem solving became established as the preferred mode for dispute resolution can be seen in the negotiations leading up to the Declaration of Independence and at the Constitutional Convention. The delegates engaged in a dynamic decision-making process involving listening to all parties’ positions, engaged in caucusing and coalition building, found common ground, compromised, and built consensus. Most importantly, they shared a common attitude that agreement could and should be found.

In her 2016 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton gave a colorful description of colonial era dispute resolution:

 “My friends, we’ve come to Philadelphia — the birthplace of our nation — because what happened in this city 240 years ago still has something to teach us today.

“We all know the story.

“But we usually focus on how it turned out — and not enough on how close that story came to never being written at all.

“When representatives from 13 unruly colonies met just down the road from here, some wanted to stick with the King.

“Some wanted to stick it to the king, and go their own way.

“The revolution hung in the balance.

“Then somehow they began listening to each other … compromising … finding common purpose.

“And by the time they left Philadelphia, they had begun to see themselves as one nation.”

 In the following decade the colonists again listened, negotiated and through compromising with shared commitment, agreed upon the constitution.  Subsequent U.S. history is one of compromise. Not all compromised agreements were perfect, such as those after the Civil War, but negotiating using compromise became one hallmark of our country that continues to reflect who we are as a nation.

For those who question our willingness to listen in this manner, I hope this example serves as reminder as to how we became a great democracy in the first place.