NEWS

Family Court Refuses to Order Immunisation

The Family Court of Australia was recently asked to decide whether or not a child should be immunised, in circumstances were the mother and father were unable to agree.

The Facts were:

1. The parties lived together from June 2004 until late 2004.
2. There was one child of the relationship, born in May 2005.
3. The parties entered into Consent Orders in April 2006 which provided that the child was not to be immunised.
4. When the child had reached 6 years of age and had not been immunised, the father applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for orders to facilitate the child being immunised.

The mother’s concerns were based on her own adverse reactions to immunisations as a child, and also as a result of reactions the child had already had. The mother feared that the child would become sick or disabled if she was immunised.

The father was concerned in addition to the risk to the child of contracting various infections, if the child was not immunised, that child may need to be withdrawn from school, or from visits with her father, her step mother and any future child they may have.

The mother relied on the evidence of her general medical practitioner, who was able to say that the mother had consulted him and discussed vaccination on various occasions with him, and had full knowledge of the pros and cons of vaccination and had decided not to vaccinate the child. Various doctors gave evidence as to the likelihood of the child contracting various infections.

At the first instance, the Orders were made in the Federal Magistrates Court in December 2010 that the child undergo a course of immunisations for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Varicella and Human Papilloma Virus.

The mother appealed.

On appeal, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia allowed two further doctors to give evidence (which can only be allowed in special circumstances). One of these doctors was able to give the court a better understanding of the risks to this particular child and steps that might be undertaken to identify and minimise any risks for the child.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Orders requiring the child to undergo immunisation and referred the matter for a rehearing.

As part of their decision, the Full Court specifically noted that the importance of having best expert evidence available to the Federal Magistrates Court upon which to base a decision and referred the matter for a rehearing.

If you are having difficulties in reaching joint decisions on important matters affecting your children, contact us to discuss your options and what might best suit your circumstances.