High Court judge backs council decision on vaccination of child, rejects objections of mother
The High Court has ruled that a mother cannot prevent the local authority caring for her child having him vaccinated.
UPP, the mother of child WSP, argued that her Muslim faith meant she could not consent to the child being vaccinated and said she feared he might face religious problems when older if the vaccinations were given.
Paul Bowen KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard UPP maintained it was not in WSP's best interests to be vaccinated and that to vaccinate him without her consent would violate her rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights both alone and when taken together with Article 14.
UPP sought an injunction to prevent the local authority from exercising its parental responsibility under s 33(3) of the Children Act 1989 to arrange for him to receive routine childhood vaccinations.
Judge Bowen said in WSP (A Child), Re (Vaccination: Religious Objection) [2023] EWHC 2622 (Fam) the case concerned a boy now age nine months who was made subject of an interim care order soon after birth because of UPP’s mental health issues, as during her pregnancy health care professionals raised concerns as she appeared to be presenting with psychotic symptoms.
The local authority feared UPP’s mental state meant she would be unable to care for WSP safely and so gained an interim care order and he was placed with his maternal grandparents.
The Deputy High Court judge said that although that consent was not necessary, as the local authority can override a refusal of consent given its powers under s 33(3)(b) of the 1989 Act, the parent's views must always be sought and it was preferable if they agree with the authority.
UPP told the court that some vaccinations use 'vero cells' in their production, which are derived from the kidney of an African green monkey; and others use cattle or pork derived products and all are at some stage tested on animals.
She said the use of animal products or animal testing in the production of the vaccines meant some Muslims consider their use to be forbidden.
Although UPP was vaccinated as a child, her parents were less orthodox in their Muslim beliefs, she said. She though felt it would be contrary to her Muslim faith for WSP to be vaccinated.
She feared that if WSP did something forbidden without repenting this would take him out of the fold of Islam, “as he would not have adhered to the rulings of God made for people” and it would be harmful for him to have to repent for something he had no control over.
The local authority described UPP's evidence of harm as speculative and not based on any objective evidence.
The Deputy High Court judge said: “In my judgment, the vaccination of WSP is in his best interests and is a proper and lawful exercise of the Local Authority's parental responsibility under s 33(3)(a) and their power to override the mother's objections under s 33(3)(b) of the 1989 Act. The mother's application for an injunction to restrain the vaccination is accordingly dismissed.”
He said the mother had not produced cogent, objective medical and/or welfare evidence demonstrating a genuine contra-indication to the administration of one or all of the routine vaccinations and harms that WSP faced if left unvaccinated included disability, serious illness and death:
“Set against that, the 'harm' that the mother complains WSP will suffer if he is vaccinated is entirely speculative and is unlikely to eventuate if the process of informing him and supporting him when he is old enough to understand is carefully and sensitively handled, as would be expected from a reasonable parent,” he said.
Judge Bowen said the mother accepted WSP would not be rejected by his faith community and that many Muslims vaccinated their children. “I do not accept there is any realistic risk that WSP will suffer any of the suggested harms,” he said.
The judge added that the mother's objections on religious grounds “do not otherwise outweigh WSP's welfare interests in receiving the vaccinations”.
He explained: “Given my conclusion that the welfare reasons the mother has put forward do not outweigh WSP's interests in receiving the vaccines, the fact of her objection, even on well-founded religious grounds and however strongly expressed, takes the matter no further.
"WSP's welfare is the paramount consideration and the mother's objection is inconsistent with his welfare. The fact her objection is founded on her religious beliefs does not constitute a trump card that overrides what is otherwise in his best interests.”
Mark Smulian
