AIBU to think that father may have taken this to court to get his own back on ex-wife(158 Posts)
Court has decided that two girls will be given MMR jab against their own wishes and against wishes of their mother
I am all for vaccinating, but surely this will be very traumatic especially for the vegan girl. I really think that it is wrong what their father has done here and this is being done to get his own back on his ex.
What do you think?
(both parents, even, dunno where set crept in from. Except I'm also reading the maths thread.)
Coconut it is optional but where both parents have PR they both get to choose.
If viewpoints between parents differ then someone has to decide
Edam your right but 15 yo girls are not exactly unknown for going on ethical crusades ( for want of a better word) if one parent blindly colludes and the other does not its not exactly rocket science to work out which one they are going to listen to.
It's all very well nodding sagely and deciding that this is a father 'asserting his will' over the mother, but as another poster said, if you have been in the position where one parent is denying medical treatment to a child, and getting the child on side by giving their own very biased views - what choice do you have, other than court?
It may be traumatic to be vaccinated, it may affect the relationship with the father.
But would it be as traumatic as contracting measles?
Sometimes tough decisions have to be made that are in the best interests of the children, this is one, hopefully they'll appreciate the decision when they're older.
The judge's decision was made on the basis that the girls didn't show a clear medical understanding of the risks - they described measles as 'just a rash' - and as another poster has pointed out, there objections to ingredients didn't extend to other medications. Yes it's weird because they're older and articulate, but a young man died during the recent measles outbreak in Wales -I can understand the father's fears.
Clearly communication on this issue isn't good, but that may not mean all communication is bad, as in the NeonRoberts case, pperhaps they just recognised the need for external adjudication.
The parents made a joint decision not to vaccinate when the children were too small to be aware of any decision being made - toddlers and age 3 or 4 for pre-school booster.
Read the article, the 15 year old had the first jab, not the booster.
Also read the bit where they were questioned and both knew the ingredients of MMR but had not thought about medicines they would have to take if they got measles.
I think the girls are old enough to make a choice. There are still doubts about MMR, regardless of people saying otherwise.
Large out of court settlements have been made in the US. Why would a business pay to keep a case out of court if they felt the law was on their side?
Having said that, I really can't say what his motivations are. And I wouldn't like to speculate.
How close is the elder girl to 16? What happens if the elder girl evades the vaccination until she turns 16? Can she then decide not to have it at all?
The older girl is interesting as she is probably old enough to give her consent - or not - under the Gillick competence criteria, but it sounds like she didn't have a sufficient understanding of risks etc.
I think this case throws up some really interesting questions about what's going to happen over the next couple of years as all these unvaccinated children start heading off to university and start mixing. There are already meningitis outbreaks occasionally in higher education. It would be really sad if we get measles outbreaks and people start losing their 18+ year old kids, having breathed a sigh of relief about getting them safely to adulthood and on to the next stage of their life. People generally underestimate the importance of good population level 'herd immunity'.
Rather than assuming the father is trying to control the mother, perhaps he's seen coverage of the south Wales outbreak and realised how vulnerable his unvaccinated daughters are.
There are plenty of unvaccinated people in this country, they don't get taken to court, and a judge doesn't order them to go ahead.
I believe in vaccination, but I respect the choices of those who choose not to. This woman is far from being alone in actively choosing not to vaccinate. It isn't compulsory, she's committed no crime.
The court ought to have told the father to discuss it with his daughters, not waste court time compelling them to.
I had a huge needle phobia at that age which has taken me 2 children, therapy and hypnotherapy to just about manage
this man is a fucking dickhead
ps I am totally pro vaccination but at that age the wishes of the girls should be respected
The judge made the right decision.
It's a shame vaccination isn't compulsory IMO. Then this would have been done when they were small and there would be no issue.
It's stupid. The idea of forcing a 15 year old girl to be injected against her will is deeply unpleasant.
We are not talking about life saving medical treatment. It's a preventative step. My DD hasn't had the vaccination and is 11. She's not teetering on the edge of disaster.
The whole thing is dick waving.
Telegraph today says the court order issued by the judge is up either today or shortly. I'm not sure whether that means the mother could be punished for failing to make her daughter have the vaccination, or merely failing to make her available for her father to make her have the vaccination.
I doubt their relationship with their father can recover, after being made to do something against their will.
....something to ^thejr* bodies, against their will....
Sensible result. From what I've read the parents made their initial decision when the girls were babies/toddlers based on the Andrew Wakefield MMR bad science. He's since come to his senses and she hasn't!
I'm pro vaccination and having it would be in the girls long term medical interest especially if they live in an outbreak area.
However I did wonder if this was all a result of Dad trying to exercise control over ex-wife and DC rather than a sudden change in beliefs.
I also can't image it will do much for the DC relationship with the Dad.
I believe in vaccination, but I respect the choices of those who choose not to. This woman is far from being alone in actively choosing not to vaccinate. It isn't compulsory, she's committed no crime
But she does not have the right to make the decision totally independently of the other parent when that other parent also has PR. both parents get to choose.
Civil courts are not about crimes family court is civil.they are there for when both parents cannot agree about issues they perceive to be important.
I feel sorry that this risks completely wrecking the relationship between the 15 year old and her dad. For me this factor means that I think that on this occasion ONLY the court hasn't acted in the best long term interests of the child (unless of course she has a compromised immune system that's not being reported on cos of confidentiality?).
The 11 year old's case is more clear cut legally, but I still despise BOTH parents for allowing this to get to court. Relationships are more important than dogma imho. Parenting is always going to involve some element of compromise somewhere along the line, whether it be with the demands of the school, your employer, finances or the other parent. Neither parent seems capable of recognising this, to the detriment of their kid's emotional security & that's just wrong.
Tbh if were the mother I would have agreed to the jab in order to preserve my child's relationship with her other parent & to keep it all out of court. I'm not impressed with Mum's behavior either.
Unless there was a clear medical reason why her specific child was more at risk that others from the jab (bad reaction to previous jab perhaps, resulting in hospitalisation? It happens) then MUM was being just as selfish as the Dad in allowing this to become a matter for the courts in the first place.
If the 15 year old then still refuses to go for the jab after Mum's agreed?Well she's old enough to take contraception, have sex or an abortion in the eyes of the law, so she's old enough to research the costs and benefits of this vaccine and decide for herself imho. there is nothing reported to suggest she has impaired intellectual capacity.
The law on teens and medical treatments, has always seemed nuts to me. You can give an 11 year old boy condoms or a 14 year old girl an abortion without parental consent, but you can't give them a paracetomol?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.