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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll