In Re H (A Child)(Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664, the child was in the care of Tower Hamlets council. The parents, who opposed the vaccination, also declined to register the birth and have several other children who have also been removed into care, following findings of violence, neglect and that they have a chaotic lifestyle.
Lady Justice King framed the question facing the court as ‘whether the routine vaccination of healthy children in care is a matter which a local authority can properly consent to and arrange pursuant to its powers under s 33 of the Children Act 1989 or whether, where a parent opposes it, the issue is of such magnitude, seriousness or gravity that it necessitates an application to the High Court for leave to invoke its inherent jurisdiction’.
Dismissing the parents’ appeal, King LJ said: ‘The administration of standard or routine vaccinations cannot be regarded as being a “serious” or “grave” matter.
‘Except where there are significant features which suggest that, unusually, it may not be in the best interests of a child to be vaccinated, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for a local authority to refer the matter to the High Court in every case where a parent opposes the proposed vaccination of their child.
‘To do so involves the expenditure of scarce time and resources by the local authority, the unnecessary instruction of expert medical evidence and the use of High Court time which could be better spent dealing with one of the urgent and serious matters which are always awaiting determination in the Family Division.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
