A father has failed in his attempt to prevent his daughter, who is subject to a care order, from receiving routine childhood vaccinations.

Sitting as a High Court judge, His Honour Judge Stephen Smith ruled that the local authority, which has parental responsibility for the seven-year-old girl, was entitled to arrange the standard immunisations recommended by UK health authorities.

The girl, identified only as C, has never been vaccinated. Her father asked the court for an injunction to stop the local authority administering any vaccines, while her mother raised concerns about the proposed catch-up schedule. Both parents said they had suffered adverse reactions to vaccinations in the past.

Medical advice obtained from the child’s GP and a consultant immunologist confirmed there were no health reasons preventing C from being vaccinated. The court noted that routine immunisations are presumed to benefit children unless credible medical evidence suggests otherwise.

Judge Smith rejected the father’s argument that the process had been unfair or that the local authority had influenced medical professionals. He also found that the parents’ evidence of past adverse reactions was “incredibly thin” and unsupported by records. Academic articles provided by the father were not sufficient to outweigh established public health guidance.

In refusing the application, the judge declared it was consistent with the council’s corporate parenting role under the Children Act 1989 to proceed with the vaccinations.

He stressed that parental objections, however strongly held, cannot outweigh the welfare benefits of routine immunisation without cogent medical evidence.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

A v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council & C (by her Guardian)
Family Court (sitting as High Court)
His Honour Judge Stephen Smith
[2025] EWFC 224 (HCJ)
9 June 2025