Lori Matheson is the second woman in one week by the same judge that could face jail time for not wanting to vaccinate her child. In this case, her ex-husband does want the vaccinations for their daughter, but Lori doesn't.
The parents of the child filed for divorce before their daughter was born and it seems that the issue in question is who has the authority to make decisions in regards to vaccinations since the parents are divorced.
Their divorce judgement names Lori as 'primary parent responsible for the child's ordinary health care needs.'
But if the judge will honour this in regards to vaccinations remains to be seen, since she recently sent another woman (Rebecca Bredow) to prison for 7 days after she refused a court order to vaccinate her child.

Source: https://www.nvic.org

The mother's objections

Lori says she researched vaccines and any adverse reactions they can have. She learned that some people could be predisposed to problems from them. She therefore asked the judge that if she were forced to have those vaccines administered to be able to wait so she can get genetic testing done to determine if her daughter could be one of those people.
She also mentioned that she has religious objections because some vaccines are cultured in aborted fetal cells and others contain animal blood.

The judge who doesn't want to know

Matheson’s attorney, Amy Ruby asked the judge to qualify Chicago-area pediatrician Toni Bark as an expert witness to testify on adverse reactions to vaccines. When asked about her qualifications, Bark said she's an expert on “adversinomics,” the study of adverse reactions to vaccines. She had been qualified as an expert witness in other States as well as in Canada and Australia. Besides this, she published a related article in a Canadian medical journal.
After numerous objections by the father’s attorney, Paul Schoenbeck, McDonald refused Ruby’s request.
Here her words:
“It’s not my intent to disparage anybody but you can’t just put a doctor on the stand, not qualify her as an expert, and then ask her questions about vaccines,”
“I’m not even sure if adversinomics is a proper field of study, and you haven’t shown that,”

But it seems like there is something going on. Either this judge has already made up her mind about this case and is just trying to make it seem like she cares or it is something else.
Because at the same time, she does allow another doctor to take the witness stand (in favour of the father), supposedly as an expert, when clearly, this woman doesn't really know what she is talking about or even what some of the ingredients are in a vaccine.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Alvin Moss is qualified as an expert witness and questioned about conflicts of interest in regards to the recommendations made by doctors. Questions were asked about specific literature provided by the CDC and the fine print on a package insert for a Hepatitis B vaccine.

Then there was the question about conflicts of interest at several institutions who provide literature on vaccines and how vaccines are approved.

source: www.clickondetroit.com
Moss testified that recommendations tend to favor vaccine manufacturers.

"Unfortunately we need to look for ourselves," Moss said. "Our physician may be unintentionally and unconsciously recommending something that he or she thinks is best for the patient, but unaware that really that recommendation came from a biased group who had a conflict of interest."

Meet the doctor who doesn't know

Below, there is another video, with first the doctor again. Now listen to what she says.
It is then followed by comments by Del Bigtree of HighWire.