T was a ten month old baby living in foster care and therefore the responsibility of the Local Authority. F was his father, who refused to register the child at birth because he believed that would make T the property of the state.
F would not allow the state to have any say whatsoever in the upbringing of the child. M was his mother, who had depression and alcoholism. Both F & M believed that T should not be subjected to any routine childhood vaccinations because both had older children from previous relationships, some of whom had medical issues which F & M associated with their childhood vaccinations.
The Local Authority sought a declaration from the court that T should be vaccinated under powers found in the Children’s Act 1989. The Local Authority cited many cases to persuade the judge that they could ask for this and evidence from a doctor that the vaccinations would be for the good of T.
M’s barrister asked that an expert be allowed to investigate the full medical history of every child in T’s family to decide whether the vaccinations were appropriate. M was concerned that some ingredients in the vaccinations were dangerous.
F’s argument was that the vaccination had DNA from a human foetus in it. He further asserted that this judge was pro-adoption and biased and that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) should not be involved because the head of CAFCASS was also pro-adoption and biased.
The court declared that the extra medical evidence was not necessary and T should be vaccinated.
It would be worth reading the whole judgment to understand the case. However, to write your essay, you do not need to understand or repeat in detail the long passages of italicised medical information.
In the case of London Borough of Tower Hamlets v F & M & T(a child) [2020] EWHC 220 (fam) a Local Authority was allowed to perform childhood vaccinations on a child whose parents did not agree with vaccinating. Should this decision be made by a judge or the parents or somebody else?
