A & D v B & E [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam) (13 June 2003)

A & D v B & E [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam) (13 June 2003)

The court held that, applying the paramountcy of the children's welfare under s.1 of the Children Act 1989, the medical evidence overwhelmingly supports immunisation as being in the best interests of the children. The emotional distress or beliefs of the mothers, while acknowledged, do not outweigh the benefits and necessity of immunisation. The court found no sufficient reason to refuse the orders sought. Article 8 ECHR is not infringed as the interference is justified for the protection of the children's health.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: A; Applicant: D; Respondent: B; Respondent: E; Other: Children (represented by CAFCASS Legal)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Specific Issue Order (children Act 1989) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Applications granted
Legal Topics
Immunisation of Children, Parental Responsibility, Best Interests of the Child, Specific Issue Orders, Expert Evidence, Human Rights (article 8 Echr)
Family Law Child Law Medical Law Immunisation of Children Parental Responsibility Best Interests of the Child Specific Issue Orders Expert Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

D

Applicant

B

Respondent

E

Respondent

Children (represented by CAFCASS Legal)

Other

Procedural Posture

Specific Issue Order (children Act 1989) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the best interests of the children to be immunised against various diseases despite the objections of their mothers.
  2. 2 Whether the court should override parental opposition to immunisation under s.8 of the Children Act 1989.
  3. 3 Whether the emotional impact on the mothers or their beliefs outweighs the medical evidence supporting immunisation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, applying the paramountcy of the children's welfare under s.1 of the Children Act 1989, the medical evidence overwhelmingly supports immunisation as being in the best interests of the children. The emotional distress or beliefs of the mothers, while acknowledged, do not outweigh the benefits and necessity of immunisation. The court found no sufficient reason to refuse the orders sought. Article 8 ECHR is not infringed as the interference is justified for the protection of the children's health.

Court Disposition

Applications granted

Orders

  • Declaration that it is in the best interests of both children to receive the recommended immunisations (with certain exceptions as to age and licensing).
  • Directions for the administration of immunisations as specified in the judgment.