In re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights); In re F (a Child) (Imminisation: Parental rights): CA 30 Jul 2003

In two actions heard together, single mothers resisted attempts to have their children immunised at the behest of the fathers, who in each case had parental responsibility.
Held: A one-parent carer did not have the freedom to make such a choice when the other parent sought that the child should be immunised. Doctors had provided expert evidence in support of the advisability of immunisations, and the judge had considered the various treatments in turn. Disputes on the value and safety of such treatments ought not to be decided at the behest of one of the two parents in the absence of agreement. Immunisation was not an invasive treatment, and ‘In re J’ did not support the mothers’ cases. It was rather preventive health care, and it was the duty of the State to promote it. The witness employed by the mothers had used junk science, and their case was against the weight of the evidence.

Judges:

Thorpe, Sedley LJJ, Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

Times 15-Aug-2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromIn re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights); In re F (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) FD 13-Jun-2003
In each case fathers not married to the mother of the child, but with parental responsibility sought to have the child immunised. The mothers opposed the treatment saying they believed it unsafe.
Held: The children should be immunised. Article . .
CitedIn Re J (A Minor) (Prohibited Steps Order: Circumcision) CA 22-Dec-1999
Where there was a dispute between parents as to the necessity or propriety of circumcising a child, it was appropriate that the court should be involved to make the decision. Such decisions were vital to the child’s upbringing and irreversible. Here . .

Cited by:

Appealed toIn re C (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights); In re F (a Child) (Immunisation: Parental rights) FD 13-Jun-2003
In each case fathers not married to the mother of the child, but with parental responsibility sought to have the child immunised. The mothers opposed the treatment saying they believed it unsafe.
Held: The children should be immunised. Article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185873