In 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 8.2 permitted interference with family life for health reasons. Mothers and fathers had equal rights before the court, and the court should be reluctant to intervene. The medical evidence was clear and persuasive. Acknowledging the mothers fears, age appropriate vaccination was in the child’s best interests. This was not a general approval of immunisation for children.
Sumner J
Times 26-Jun-2003, Gazette 14-Aug-2003
Children Act 1989 8, European Convention on Human Rights 8.2
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed toIn 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 . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromIn 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.184024