K (A Child : permission to vaccinate)

In an application concerning vaccination of a child in interim local-authority care, the welfare principle requires the court to assess vaccination by reference to the child’s welfare, including the established benefits of vaccination and identifiable side effects. Subject to credible contrary medical evidence or a genuine contraindication, vaccination in accordance with Public Health England guidance will generally be in a healthy child’s best interests. Parental ethical, religious and freedom-of-choice objections remain relevant, but do not determine the outcome where the child’s welfare points clearly towards vaccination.

The parents of K, a child subject to an interim care order, applied to prevent the local authority from arranging her routine vaccinations without their consent. K had not received the usual programme of vaccinations. The parents relied on medical-safety concerns, ethical objections, religious beliefs and objections to differential treatment of children in care.

The application was determined at an interim hearing without oral evidence. The central issue was whether vaccination was contrary to K’s welfare, having regard to the recent Court of Appeal decision in Re H (A Child)(Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664.

1. Application dismissed. The court rejected the parents’ application to prevent vaccination. The judge stated that, if the local authority had applied for permission to vaccinate, he would have granted that application.
2. The burden lay on the parents, as applicants, to persuade the court that non-vaccination was in K’s best interests. The decision was not made on a narrow technical burden-of-proof basis, but on the substantive welfare assessment.
3. The court was bound by Re H (A Child)(Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664. That decision applied equally to children subject to interim care as to children subject to final care orders. Subject to credible developments in medical science or peer-reviewed research to the contrary, the benefits of vaccinating in accordance with Public Health England guidance could outweigh recognised and identifiable side effects.
4. The principle stated in F v F [2013] EWCH 2683 (Fam) was also relevant: an application to prevent vaccination was unlikely to succeed without cogent, objective medical or welfare evidence demonstrating a genuine contraindication to one or more routine vaccinations.
5. The parents’ scientific material was treated as a considered representation, not expert evidence. It did not demonstrate a genuine contraindication. K was a healthy, thriving child, and the judge considered her comparable to the healthy child in Re H (A Child)(Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664.
6. The judge respected the parents’ ethical and religious objections and considered their Article 8 rights. However, K had independent Article 8 rights, and her welfare was paramount. The Covid-19 pandemic did not alter the analysis.