header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 November 2013 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7583 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

An injection of sense

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_coverimage

Jonathan Herring considers vaccinations & the right to refuse
The case of F v F [2013] EWHC 2783 (Fam) involved a dispute over the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination of two girls, L (aged 15) and M (aged 11). The vaccination normally takes place not long after birth. However, the parents decided not to have M vaccinated at all and not to give L the recommended booster jab. That decision was made because at the time Dr Andrew Wakefield’s (now discredited) research had raised concerns about the safety of the vaccination.

 

Change of mind

The issue over vaccination had come to the court because the couple had separated and the father now believed the girls should receive the vaccination. The mother retained her original view that they should not. The mother’s opposition was grounded in her questioning of the benefits of the vaccine and concern over side effects. She also believed the father was going back on an agreement they had reached over the issue. The girls lived with

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll