Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

VACCINATIONS: F v F [2013] EWHC 2683 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:48 PM
Slug : vaccinations-f-v-f-2013-ewhc-2683-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 14, 2013, 07:54 AM
Article ID : 103791

(Family Division, Theis J, 5 September 2013)

Following the parents' separation the two children, aged 15 and 11, resided with their mother and had contact with their father on alternate weekends and during school holidays. Following the birth of the first child she received her MMR vaccination but due to the controversy surrounding the safety of the vaccination at the time, she did not receive her booster and the younger child was not inoculated at all.

The father claimed that he was increasingly concerned of the effects of the children not being immunised particularly now that the paper which started the controversy over the vaccine had since been discredited. He now sought a declaration and a specific issue order for the children to receive the MMR vaccine which the mother opposed.

The children met a Cafcass officer and expressed their concerns about the ingredients of the MMR vaccine especially the older child who was vegan.

In taking into account the children's wishes and feelings and that their welfare was the court's paramount consideration orders were made for them to receive the MMR vaccination. Their views had inevitably been influenced by a number of factors which altered the weight to be attached to them. The medical evidence pointed in one way, in favour of having the vaccine despite the accepted side effects. The diseases being prevented were serious with long-term health consequences. 

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from