Divorce, MMR, fathers' rights... I declare the debate OPEN

[ScummyMummy]

Look here for more info. Sounds like a hot mumsnet debate topic to me if ever I heard one!

If only we knew what was really truly safe, feel sorry for all concerned.

All I can say with any certainty is how frustrating it must be to STILL be told how to do things by your (ex)husband when you are b*y divorced!

I am fairly pro-MMR (will get my own children done, dont REALLY believe in it causing harm) but, I hasten to add, very much in favour of parents having a choice over it. I suppose its interesting that the courts came down in favour of the MMR - therefore they must have decided that to remain unvaccinated was more of a risk to health.

This is truly outrageous! Especially given that the girls live with their mothers and the mothers don't want them to have MMR. I wonder what the girls think of the whole thing and of their fathers for bringing the action? If they don't want MMR either I wonder if they've got a case for assault? I think this sets a dangerous precendent and I sincerely hope the ruling is challenged.

Hmmm... playing devil's advocate here but shouldn't the father have as much say in the upbringing of his child as the mother? Especially if he's paying maintenance for that child. An interesting thought. This sounds more like the father trying to get one over on the mother though.

agree with you Soupdragon. Have to say though that doesn't one of the parents get awarded more rights i.e. normally the parent where the child is resident, in this case the mother? Only divorce I experienced was my parents so I'm certainly not the gospel.

Enid - I read the report in the evening standard and felt that the judge was more concerned with herd immunity than with the health of the two children but that might be me being cynical. My dd has had the MMR but when she was a lot older when I felt she was a lot stronger to handle it. I would go ballistic if someone had overruled my judgement and given it to her at only 1 yr.

ScummyMummy - you beat me to it! I was going to to start on one this

Hard to comment in this case since not given enough information about relationship between all concerned, but presume pretty bad if got to this stage. HOWEVER, if the judge does think he has truly decided based upon the information available, well, not sure I think he's wrong. I wonder if, had it been the mother in favour of MMR, whether she would have consulted her ex at all. That must happen a lot surely.

I think it is all pretty outrageous - after all there is no law that says you have to immunise so why would a court impose it? but the worst thing of all is imagining that anyone could have such a bad relationship with their ex-husband/wife that they end up in court fighting about a jab. scary...

...and we still don't know if Blair's son has had the jab...

I think it is wrong to overule the parent with residency unless there is a very strong reason - I think this reason is tenuous at best.

In one of the cases it is pretty much the father being vindictive, as far as I can tell. He has been seperated from the mother since BEFORE the child was born - as far as I can tell she left him because she was afraid of his aggressive/obsessive tendancies and returned to Britain. He is a foriegn national, and followed her to this country. This is just one of the upbringing type rows they have had (even though it is clear to everyone who knows her the sort of opinion she has on this sort of thing, and unless she has changed dramatically recently, I awould have thought that it would always have been fairly obvious where she stood - she is not the sort of person to hide her views when they are strongly held!)

I seem to recall that he also tried to get a court order (or at least made a big fuss) to try to stop her extended breastfeeding. The latest row - which has apparently just began in the couple of weeks since this court order was made - is about education - with him trying to make it difficult for her to give her daughter the type of education she feels is appropriate. sigh

It is a very difficult situation, but I just can't help feeling that to order that the children to recieve ALL the vaccinations in a short period of time is SO clearly thinking about the "herd" not the individual. Many of them are no longer appropriate anyway (both children are girls, and so mumps is not a big threat for them, rubella isn't a threat to them until they reach childbearing age, and pertussis is most dangerous to young infants - which neither child involved is.

I don't think this case should have even been heard by the courts.

Personally I think the father should have an equal right in health and education decisions in his childrens' lives. And speaking from my dh's experience, the father has virtually no chance of having the children living with him, so it a bit unfair to suggest that the mother should be making all the decisions simply because the children live with her. Of course, this is an opinion in general terms. I don't know anything about the specifics of these two families. But as my dh's solicitor pointed out to him, these were the men these women chose to be the father of their children.

The general principle is that the person with care should make decisions on a day to day basis without interference from the non-resident parent. I suppose this might be considered different to day to day care, but I still feel this is wrong. Single vaccines don't anyone at risk - what's a few months gap when we are talking about an unvaccinated 10 or 4 year old? I do suspect vindictiveness and would like to know more. My dh has a daughter from a previous relationship and a vidictive ex who left him, so I would normally be totally pro dad's rights, but this case seems different to me.

Very much agree with CAM. This case should never have made it to court. To make vaccinating these girls legally binding sets a dangerous preceden.

However much you champion father's rights, to vaccinate or not to vaccinate IMO counts as a day to day decision to be made by the parent who is living with the children.

Some time last year, my dh's ex decided that their son needed Ridlin (sp?) because he was getting into trouble at school (the real reason was that she would get extra benefits for a child on Ridlin). Luckily my dh found out her plans from a neighbor and threatened her with a court order (not that he had the faintest idea how to get one or if he was even entitled to one) if she gave him Ridlin. Just because the antiquated British courts consider her a better parent (therefore the one to get residency) simply because she is female and not working (!), doesn't mean she is better equipped to make decisions about my dh's children.

ritalin? for add?

Completely agree with CAM & Tigermoth this should not have come to court. This is a very dangerous precedent. Also agree with Doormat that these children are being used as political pawns.

Agree that this should never have got to court and that the children should not be treated like this by their [arents. Surely if you have children together you should at least be able to discuss their welfare togther - what a shame this isn't possible.

BUT, I don't think the court can be to blame. They just have to do their job. The decision has nothing to do with either parent - it will be to do with the Children's Act. The welfare and health of the children is the only concern for a court. As, according to the government/english laws/etc, there is nothing wrong with the MMR they have to find that it is more risky for the children not to have it and to be at risk from the illnesses, than not to have the MMR.

I just think the whole affair is so so sad and highlights how society today is changing.

Interestingly, I read today that the 10 year old girl does NOT want MMR. Neither does the 4yo but the judge has decided neither of them have any say in the matter. The couples weren't married but both fathers had parental responsibility.

But claireandrich, as someone else said, there's no law that says you have to give your child MMR so I don't see how a court can enforce something that doesn't exist IYSWIM. Why ever weren't they ordered to sort this through mediation though? Gobsmacking.

Agree that it is shoking that it got to court.

All I was saying though is that the law is to do what is best for the children on blanace. As there is no definite evidence to say MMR is bad (taccording to the governement not me) but there is eveidence to say that catching measles, mupns, etc can be dangerous the law will say to have the jab is better for the girl's health. I am not saying that that decision is right but it is following the law.

This judgement is not following the law but following current government medical opinion. (Which not everyone agrees with).These are not the same thing. This decision is wrong and if allowed to stand will set an appalling and unacceptable legal precedent.