Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

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