BC v EF (Parental Responsibility : Immunisation) [2016] EWFC 69 (05 December 2016)

BC v EF (Parental Responsibility : Immunisation) [2016] EWFC 69 (05 December 2016)

The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration. The expert evidence established no medical contraindication to immunisation and no increased risk to the children. The mother's opposition, while sincerely held, is not supported by medical evidence. The court must exercise independent judgment and is not bound to defer to the views of the primary carer. Immunisation is in the best interests of the children and should proceed according to age-appropriate guidance.

Citation
[2016] EWFC 69
Parties
Applicant: BC; Respondent: EF; Guardian: Guardian/children
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Law Specific Issue Order (immunisation) / Judgment Following Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application for specific issue order regarding immunisation granted.
Legal Topics
Specific Issue Order, Parental Responsibility, Immunisation, Welfare of the Child, Section 8 Children Act 1989, Section 1 Children Act 1989, Article 8 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Specific Issue Order Parental Responsibility Immunisation Welfare of the Child Section 8 Children Act 1989 Section 1 Children Act 1989 +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BC

Applicant

EF

Respondent

Guardian/children

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Family Law Specific Issue Order (immunisation) / Judgment Following Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children M and N should be immunised against the wishes of the mother under a specific issue order
  2. 2 How the welfare of the children is to be assessed in the context of parental disagreement over immunisation

Ratio Decidendi

The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration. The expert evidence established no medical contraindication to immunisation and no increased risk to the children. The mother's opposition, while sincerely held, is not supported by medical evidence. The court must exercise independent judgment and is not bound to defer to the views of the primary carer. Immunisation is in the best interests of the children and should proceed according to age-appropriate guidance.

Court Disposition

Application for specific issue order regarding immunisation granted.

Orders

  • Immunisation of M and N to proceed according to age-appropriate guidance, either by agreement or, if necessary, by order of the court.