Family courts have begun to weigh in on parental Covid-19 vaccinations

It seems odd that parents are to be denied access to children if they (the parents) are not vaccinated.

In the UK, the JVCI determined that

The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-se...

but the vaccine program for 12-15 year-olds went ahead anyway on the grounds that the benefit of the reduced infectivity of children would be felt by adults, and so benefit the children indirectly.

Overall however the view of the UK CMOs is that the additional likely benefits of reducing educational disruption, and the consequent reduction in public health harm from educational disruption, on balance provide sufficient extra advantage in addition to the marginal advantage at an individual level identified by the JCVI to recommend in favour of vaccinating this group.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-vaccina...

i.e., the vaccination status of the parents is not relevant to the welfare of the child as far as concerns the virus, only as far as it would disrupt the child's welfare vis a vis education were the parent to get the virus. But if "what you do might result in an injury to yourself and interrupt you child's education" is sufficient to deny access, shouldn't the same be true of other activities? Rock-climbing? Skiing?