Children in care and vaccinations: who decides?

28 May 2020 by

Re H (A Child) (Responsibility Order: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664

In the current circumstances, this case has important resonances and maybe even implications for future vaccinations. It was an appeal by the parents of a ten year old child against a decision that the local authority, had lawful authority to have the child vaccinated (pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Children Act 1989.

The local authority had made care and placement orders in respect of the child, who was at the time in foster care. The LA argued that it had lawful authority, pursuant to the Children Act 1989 s.33(3), to arrange the vaccination of a child in care notwithstanding the objection of the parents, and that therefore it was unnecessary and inappropriate to refer the decision to the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction. Parental views regarding immunisation had always to be considered but the decision depended solely on the child’s welfare.

The parents objected to the vaccination on the grounds that they constituted “serious medical treatment” and that in any dispute between a local authority and a parent as to whether a child in care should be vaccinated the proper procedural route should be an application under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

A bit of background: in the hearing below, [2020] EWHC 220 (Fam), Hayden J said that the parents, but more particularly the father, were

driven by the fundamental belief that neither the court nor the State, through the arm of the Local Authority has any jurisdiction to take decisions in relation to his children. To this end they had also declined to register T’s birth, [which also became a matter for the courts].

Vaccinations are not compulsory in this country, although in proceedings involving children the best interests of the child are paramount, and the current scientific evidence has established that it is in the best medical interests of a child to be vaccinated unless there are specific contra-indications in any individual case.

Again, in the court below, Hayden J observed at para [12] that vaccinations should not be characterised as “medical treatment” but as “a facet of public preventative healthcare intending to protect both individual children and society more generally”.

It would therefore be “disproportionate”, in his view, to expect a Local Authority to be required to apply to a High Court Judge to initiate proceedings, “the result of which has been in every case to authorise vaccination”.

The judge therefore made the order for the vaccination of the child under two possible jurisdictional routes, either:

i) s.33(3) Children Act 1989 (CA 1989); or

ii) By way of declaration under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, with permission granted under s.100 CA 1989.

The issue before the Court of Appeal related solely to the identification of the proper procedural route to be adopted by a local authority where a dispute in relation to vaccination arises with parents in relation to a child in their care.

The parents’ appeal was dismissed.

Reasoning behind the Court’s decision

It was unimportant whether vaccinations were categorised as “medical treatment”‘ or as “preventative health care”. The critical issue was whether immunisation was to be regarded as “grave”‘ or “serious” in the context of the exercise of parental responsibility by a local authority such that they required the sanction of the court when a dispute arose. The vaccination of children under the UK public health programme was not a “grave” issue where there was no contra-indication in relation to the child especially as the alleged link between MMR and autism had been definitively disproved. Where there were no care proceedings, a parent could not be considered to be causing a child to suffer significant harm if they decided not to vaccinate their child, so the same refusal could hardly provide reasonable cause to believe that the child was likely to suffer significant harm in order to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under s.100(4)(b). The judge had been correct to categorise immunisation as not amounting to an issue of gravity.

As far as the power of a local authority under s.33(3)(b) was concerned, the Court observed that a local authority with a care order could arrange for a child in its care to be vaccinated where it was satisfied that it was in the best interests of that individual child, notwithstanding the objections of parents. However, it would be inappropriate for the court to make an interim care order in order to activate s.33 where the parents were “caring, committed and capable” (see paras 89-90 of O (A Minor) (Medical Treatment), Re [1993] 3 WLUK 225).

Parliament had specifically given the local authority the power under s.33(3)(b) to override the views of a parent holding parental responsibility, so the local authority’s view prevailed in all matters except those found in the statutory exceptions or where the decision was of such magnitude that it properly fell within s.100 (paras 91-95).

The position of parents – It was axiomatic that the local authority involved parents in decision-making and took their views into account. Section 33 was not an invitation to local authorities to ride roughshod over the wishes of parents whose children were in care. Where parents were opposed to vaccination they could apply to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and, if necessary, could apply for an injunction under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.8 to prevent the child being vaccinated before the matter came before a court for adjudication. However, they were unlikely to succeed unless they could present cogent, objective medical and/or welfare evidence demonstrating a genuine contra-indication to the administration of one or all of the routine vaccinations (paras 99-103).

Vaccinations where no doubt in the best medical interests of the child. As King LJ observed,

In my judgment, subject to any credible development in medical science or peer-reviewed research to the opposite effect, the proper approach to be taken by a local authority or a court is that the benefit in vaccinating a child in accordance with Public Health England guidance can be taken to outweigh the long-recognised and identified side effects. Any expert evidence should ordinarily, therefore, be limited to case where a child has an unusual medical history and to consideration of whether his or her own circumstances throw up any contra-indications, as was the case in relation to one specific vaccine in Re C and F (Children) [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam) (Re C and F)

The Court therefore concluded that:
i) Although vaccinations are not compulsory, the scientific evidence now clearly establishes that it is in the best medical interests of children to be vaccinated in accordance with Public Health England’s guidance unless there is a specific contra-indication in an individual case.

ii) Under s.33(3)(b) CA 1989 a local authority with a care order can arrange and consent to a child in its care being vaccinated where it is satisfied that it is in the best interests of that individual child, notwithstanding the objections of parents.

iii) The administration of standard or routine vaccinations cannot be regarded as being a ‘serious’ or ‘grave’ matter, so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the LA and therefore it is neither necessary nor appropriate for a local authority to refer the matter to the High Court in every case where a parent opposes the proposed vaccination of their child. To do so involves the expenditure of scarce time and resources by the local authority, the unnecessary instruction of expert medical evidence and the use of High Court time which could be better spent dealing with one of the urgent and serious matters which are always awaiting determination in the Family Division.

iv) Parental views regarding immunisation must always be taken into account but the matter is not to be determined by the strength of the parental view unless the view has a real bearing on the child’s welfare.

It followed that the appeal was dismissed and that the declaration made by the judge below that the local authority had lawful authority, pursuant to s.33(3) CA 1989, to consent to and make arrangements for the vaccination of the child, notwithstanding the objection of the parents, will stand.

4 comments


  1. Fiona Tyrrell says:

    As ever, the devil is in the detail. Administering the MMR vaccine to a 3+year-old is unlikely to carry the same risks as administering it to a much younger child. As with any medical intervention, there are risks and benefits to be balanced, even when the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.
    I find it rather disquieting that a local authority should take over this level of decision-making unless the parents are genuinely unable to make an informed decision.
    In view of the rush to find a vaccine for Covid-19, it seems more important than ever to consider the ethics of any medical decision regarding preventive care, however well-intentioned. Personally, I do not equate a single immunisation against a killer like polio with a proposed/potential annual Covid-19 vaccine of dubious virtue and inadequate or rushed testing.

  2. Menno says:

    It’s interesting to see, that ultimately it’s not the parents who decides what’s in the interest of the child but ‘society’ (in this case represented by a judge). This could open up a can of worms. What if parents have certain (possibly or not…) extreme political or religious convictions. Or ideas about food, health, education…you name it. In other words what are the limits for interference by ‘society’.

  3. teamlemon1hotmail says:

    Why do we need so many vaccinations. The child gets sick, they get over it or they can be treated at the time. Who knows what other substances are included in these vaccines. What about chemicals in the air and on the food we eat, why is Alzeimers disease on the increase? A teacher I know wasn’t vaccinated as a child and neither were her children and they have had no ill effects throughout their lives. Teacher is now retired. Perhaps you should do a little research of your own. I suppose you would agree that it was terrorists on 9/11 and the lone gunman assassination of JFK? This govt sprayed Cadmium in East Anglia some years ago did you know that, and that is documented.

  4. Andrew says:

    Vaccination does not only protect the child; it protects the community. It is like chlorinating the water, which only the tinfoil hat brigade oppose. In the absence of genuine medical reasons related to the particular child it should be compulsory and preferably done through the schools. Now more than ever.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: