Vaccinations - posting for traffic

[LoveInTokyo]

What happens in the case of separated or divorced parents where the parents can’t agree on whether the child should have vaccinations or not?

Situation:

Parent A is the primary caregiver. The child’s GP recommended that the child receive all the usual vaccinations. Parent A refused all vaccinations. Parent B wishes the child to be vaccinated. GP says the child can not be vaccinated without both parents’ consent.

Can anything be done?

Can the court make a decision to overrule Parent A on this in any children proceedings?

Thanks.

I take it there are no sound medical reasons behind Parent A's rejection of vaccinations? (These do exist, though they are not as common as many anti-vaxxers would have us believe).

In that case, were I Parent B, I would be taking this to court, and I am guessing I would probably win. (Don't know the actual legal position, though).

No, Parent A is just a hippy dippy type.

You would need to discuss this with experts, there are legal issues and ethical issues. I am not convinced the GP is correct about both parents consent although once they know there is conflict they might steer clear. You need to research it. Personally, I feel withholding vaccs is neglect but that's just my opinion

Parent B cannot afford legal advice, which is why I was hoping someone here might know the answer!

Yes, the court can make a ruling if parental agreement can't be reached. Parent B should consult the CAB or a solicitor asap to resolve the issue before the kids end up seriously endangered by Parent A's idiocy.

If there are no medical contraindications, then the court will rule in the child's best interest, which is usually that the child receives the vaccinations in accordance with the NHS schedule.
.
Parent A may well get a bollocking from the Judge and the court costs to pay.

It would probably be in a family court. Usually social workers would be involved too - can Parent B talk to social services about what options are available to get a court order? It may be that legal aid is possible (or even that the children are given independent legal representation since it may well be a safeguarding issue)

Wasn't there a case with 2 teenage sisters a few years ago in the UK? I can't remember how it panned out.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/

This sounds like one parent's consent is sufficient?

adc.bmj.com/content/99/Suppl_1/A193.1

This is a brief overview. When it has happened before courts have ruled in favour of vaccination.

Thank you all, very helpful.

I am not convinced the GP is correct about both parents consent although once they know there is conflict they might steer clear

Technically the GP is correct; the Green Book (our immunisation "bible") says the following:

Although the consent of one person with parental responsibility for a child is usually sufficient (see Section 2(7) of the Children Act 1989), if one parent agrees to immunisation but the other disagrees, the immunisation should not be carried out unless both parents can agree to immunisation or there is a specific court approval that the immunisation is in the best interests of the child.

One would hope the courts tell Parent A they are stupid af and allow Parent B to actually care for their child appropriately.

You’d hope so, wouldn’t you?

Unfortunately Parent B only gets access to the child when Parent A feels like it.