For those in CA that have not read the new licensing quarterly updates ...

Did you know that there is a new law that started Jan 1st of this year about parents that choose not to immunize their children? Just thought that I'd put it out there.

Before this year if a parent chose not to immunize all they had to do was sign and date the Personal Beliefs Affidavit on the back of the blue immunization record and that was all that was required. Then all we had to do was have that blue form in the child's file. Now it is required for a parent to not only sign it but also to go to their child healthcare provider to have a form signed. We have to keep that form and the blue card in the child's file.

Here's the form.
Personal Beliefs Exemption to Required Immunizations

I just checked the quarterly updates and the Fall one is out so I thought I'd share.

Reply

Thanks for sharing, I knew they needed a note but saved this PDF in case we have a family in the future who doesn't immunize.

Reply

Are you required to let other parents know?

Are you, as an INDEPENDENT business owner allowed to deny enrollment to a child who is not immunized if you choose to do so?

Does the parent have to have a reason other than "personal" as to why they aren't having immunizations?

Are there exceptions or special requirements for families doing delayed or spaced-out or partial vaccinations?


Sorry for all the questions....but I am curious.

Reply

Responses in bold.

Reply

No worries ...

As an independent business owner we have always been able to deny taking in a child that is not regularly immunized because of the liability of a non-immunized child. It's all in the wording that you use.

I don't think that the parent has to give us a reason, they can simply choose not immunize. The form is filled out by the child's practitioner only after talking to the parent about the pros and cons on immunizing and not immunizing. Sounds to me like "if you want to choose not to immunize you have to make that decision based on scientific information that a DR will give you". CA won't make is easy anymore for parents to let's say "forget" or "lose" their child's immunization card and therefore claim that they choose not immunize by signing the back of the blue card.

So far if a parent simply falls behind and licensing catches on then we can just tell them that the parent is planning on catching on. I dont know if it's like this everywhere else in CA but my licensor will ask to be mailed/emailed the updated record once the child is caught up. IDK what will happen now with the new law.

Reply

That's kind of why I am wondering....if they are going to be so gray about allowing exceptions....then why have a law to immunize at all?

Also, how would licensing cite you or write you up if parent's just sign the card stating they are not going to immunize (after discussing it with the Dr) and then just don't give you any more info?

Do the cards (with Dr's statement and parent signature) expire so the parent has to re-do another one each year or bi-annually?

I guess I just don't understand why or how they are going to continue enforcing an immunization law in FCC, Center care and public schools if there is going to be so many "outs"

Reply

This link shows that every state has their own rules, many states are like CA.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

Reply

And they can't cite you if the blue card is signed and now your form is filled out. Our health & safety class said it's the law that every child be immunized and briefly covered the blue form but said it's often misused and even his child's school had him sign it until he could get the records or a tdap booster or something on the first day of school even though it was simply a mistake on the parents part. Like MV said, some people are just lazy and sign it to avoid getting the print out from their Ped or finding their card.

Reply

You do however have to be consistent with your policies- you cannot pick and choose who has to be vaccinated and who doesn't, however because of the ADA if they have a disability that doesn't allow them to be immunized (or they have to do it on a slower pace), then you need to allow for that.

The law allows (a) parent/guardians to choose exemptions from immunization requirements based on their personal beliefs, and (b) physicians of children to choose medical exemptions from them. The law does not allow parent/guardians to chose an exemption simply because the "shot" record is lost or incomplete and it is too much trouble to get to a physician or clinic to correct the problem.

Reply

I think this is CA's way of stopping parents from just signing the form because they don't want to be bothered to get a copy of their records and to stop providers from just having parents sign the form so the provider doesn't have to keep up on the record keeping aspect of the immunizations.

Reply

exactly

Reply

I'm afraid of it possibly turning into something like this.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.c...dical-opinion/
With a doctor saying that the child is neglected on the basis of not getting immunizations (or getting delayed immunizations) after being lectured on the risks.

Reply

I read about this story and I don't see this happening over delayed or skipping vaccines when it's legally acceptable in our state. If the child was medically fragile and the dr strongly encourages the flu shot then I could see CPS being alerted but removed is so rare even with suspected abuse. I know a micro-preemie mom who cancelled a GI or nutritionist appt because baby was sick and they called CPS on her. It was ridiculous. Most drs will refuse to treat your child let alone sign a paper if they are adamant about vaccines. I've heard from several parents that the dr fired them as a patient for refusing to vaccinate and that some insurance companies reimburse at a higher rate if you have higher than a certain percentage fully vaccinated, allowing only for those medically fragile or newborn patients.
I am very happy with CA's policy and like others said, this is more for the lazy parents than the providers.

Reply