LCC v A & Ors (Minors By Their Children's Guardian)

LCC v A & Ors (Minors By Their Children's Guardian)

Declarations authorising immunisations are granted because the evidence demonstrates they are in the children's welfare interests, there is no credible evidence linking MMR to autism, parental objections are outweighed by medical opinion and the children's need for preventive healthcare, and the interference with parental rights is justified and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Parties
Applicant: Lancashire County Council; 1st Respondents: A, B, C & D (Minors by their Children’s Guardian); 2nd Respondent: K; 3rd Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Inherent Jurisdiction Application / Judgment After Submissions
Outcome
Declarations authorising immunisations granted, subject to clarification on seasonal flu immunisation for A.
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Immunisation, Inherent Jurisdiction, Child Welfare, Medical Consent
Family Law Child Welfare Medical Law Parental Responsibility Immunisation Inherent Jurisdiction Medical Consent

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancashire County Council

Applicant

A, B, C & D (Minors by their Children’s Guardian)

1st Respondents

K

2nd Respondent

S

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Inherent Jurisdiction Application / Judgment After Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant declarations authorising immunisation injections for children in care against parental objections
  2. 2 Whether the proposed immunisations are in the children's welfare interests
  3. 3 Whether the interference with parental rights is justified and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Declarations authorising immunisations are granted because the evidence demonstrates they are in the children's welfare interests, there is no credible evidence linking MMR to autism, parental objections are outweighed by medical opinion and the children's need for preventive healthcare, and the interference with parental rights is justified and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Declarations authorising immunisations granted, subject to clarification on seasonal flu immunisation for A.

Orders

  • Booster immunisations for the children authorised, subject to checking C's immunisation records.
  • MMR immunisation (booster for A, primary for younger children) authorised.