A couple who wished to intervene in the case of their newborn son who was due to receive common childhood vaccinations against diseases such as diphtheria, polio and whooping cough, has been rejected by the UK Court of Appeal.
The newborn child (‘T’) was placed in foster care in September 2019. In February 2020, London Borough of Tower Hamlets applied to the High Court for a declaration that it was in the best interests of T to receive a schedule of vaccinations. Section 33 of the Children Act 1989 permits councils in the United Kingdom to consent to vaccinations for children subject to care orders. Hence, London Borough of Tower Hamlets was permitted to act as T’s ‘institutional parent’ to get him vaccinated.
However, the couple strongly contested the vaccination of T. The couple submitted that each of their children were vaccinated, which resulted in multiple adverse health conditions.
Mr Justice Hayden found that the parents’ arguments against state interference in their child’s life were “tenuous and tendentious”. The Court favoured the conclusion that the vaccination schedule, in the context of T's growth and development, meets his best interests and outweighs such risks as were identified. He concluded that the Council had inherent jurisdiction under the 1989 Act to arrange for T’s schedule of vaccination.
Click here for the full High Court decision judgement.