Vaccinating children is a topic that continues to spark debate, especially among separated parents who may hold differing views. With childhood vaccination rates declining across the UK, questions about parental rights and responsibilities are becoming increasingly common. In this article, we examine the legal framework surrounding childhood vaccinations, the consequences of parental disagreement, and the approach courts have taken to these sensitive issues.
Are parents becoming more hesitant about childhood vaccinations?
Recent headlines reveal a growing trend: more parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children against common childhood illnesses such as measles. This has raised concerns among healthcare professionals, especially as vaccination rates continue to fall.
Who decides whether a child should be vaccinated?
For children aged 16 or 17, the decision to receive a vaccine is generally theirs to make. However, when it comes to children under the age of 16, the decision rests with those who have parental responsibility.
In legal terms, parental responsibility means having “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent has in relation to their child and the child’s property.”
What happens when separated parents disagree about vaccinations?
Vaccination decisions can become particularly difficult when separated parents have conflicting views. Disagreements over the perceived risks and benefits of vaccines may result in legal disputes, and we anticipate that such disagreements will increasingly lead to court applications.
What do the courts say about vaccinations?
In several recent cases, the courts have reinforced the view that a child’s best interests must be the primary concern when deciding on vaccination.
Example: Religious objection overruled by the court
In one High Court case, a mother objected to her child being vaccinated due to her Muslim faith. The child was in the care of the local authority, and the court ruled in favour of vaccination. The judge concluded that there was no strong medical or welfare reason to prevent the child from receiving routine vaccines, stating:
“Given my conclusion that the welfare reasons the mother has put forward do not outweigh [the child’s] interests in receiving the vaccines, the fact of her objection, even on well-founded religious grounds and however strongly expressed, takes the matter no further.”
Example: Covid-19 vaccinations and NHS schedule
In the case of M v H and Others, the father applied for a Specific Issue Order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 to allow his children to be vaccinated according to the NHS vaccination schedule, including future vaccines such as those for travel or Covid-19. The court ruled in his favour, again citing the children’s best interests as the decisive factor.
Do I have to go to court if I disagree with my ex-partner about vaccinating our child?
Court proceedings should be a last resort. If you and your ex-partner cannot agree, consider alternative dispute resolution methods such as:
- Family counselling
- Mediation
- Collaborative law
These options are usually more cost-effective, less stressful, and more likely to result in a resolution that puts the child’s welfare first.
Need legal advice about childhood vaccinations or parental responsibility disputes?
Our experienced family law solicitors can help. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
