LCC v A & Ors (Minors By Their Children's Guardian) [2011] EWHC 4033 (Fam) (26 May 2011)

LCC v A & Ors (Minors By Their Children's Guardian) [2011] EWHC 4033 (Fam) (26 May 2011)

The court held that the welfare of the children required authorisation of the proposed immunisations, as there is no credible evidence linking MMR to autism, the immunisations are in the children's best interests, and the parents' objections are based on discredited research and a history of neglect. The interference with parental rights is justified and proportionate to protect the children's health.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 4033 (Fam)
Parties
Applicant: LCC; 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
Family / Judgment After Final Hearing on Application for Declarations Regarding Immunisation
Outcome
Declarations granted authorising booster immunisations and MMR; decision on seasonal flu immunisation for A deferred pending further medical clarification.
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Immunisation, Medical Treatment of Children, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Child Law Public Law Inherent Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Immunisation Medical Treatment of Children Welfare of the Child

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LCC

Applicant

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

1st Respondents

K

2nd Respondent

S

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Judgment After Final Hearing on Application for Declarations Regarding Immunisation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant declarations authorising immunisation of children in care against parental objections
  2. 2 How to balance parental views and welfare of the child in medical decisions under inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the welfare of the children required authorisation of the proposed immunisations, as there is no credible evidence linking MMR to autism, the immunisations are in the children's best interests, and the parents' objections are based on discredited research and a history of neglect. The interference with parental rights is justified and proportionate to protect the children's health.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted authorising booster immunisations and MMR; decision on seasonal flu immunisation for A deferred pending further medical clarification.

Orders

  • Booster immunisations for all children authorised, subject to confirmation of C's immunisation records.
  • MMR immunisation (including booster for A) authorised.