Mother who objected to her baby being vaccinated while in care loses English High Court case seeking injunction

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] EWHC 2622 (Fam)
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  England and Wales High Court

UPP, the mother of the child, maintained it was not in his best interests to be vaccinated and to allow him to be vaccinated without her consent would violate her rights under Articles 9 and 14 ECHR. The child, WSP, was born in February 2023 and taken into local authority care the following month on an interim care order.

The case was heard by Deputy High Court Judge Paul Bowen KC. Jonathan Adler appeared for the applicant, Kate Hudson for the local authority as first respondent, and Siobhan Kelly for the child’s guardian as second respondent. WSP’s father had not been identified and was not party to the proceedings.

Inconsistent reasons

During the applicant’s pregnancy, health care professionals raised concerns about her mental health as she appeared to be presenting with psychotic symptoms. Whilst pregnant in hospital, the mother refused anti-psychotic medication which was administered compulsorily under the Mental Health Act 1983 with the support of a second opinion appointed doctor. WSP was born by caesarean section after an order was obtained allowing the procedure without the mother’s consent.

The local authority was concerned that due to her mental health condition the mother would be unable to care for WSP safely. They sought an interim care order which was granted on 7 March 2023. On 30 June a further order was granted authorising the separation of WSP from his mother’s care and he was placed with his maternal grandparents.

It was argued by the applicant that it would be contrary to her Muslim faith for WSP to be vaccinated, as the use of animal products or testing in some vaccines made them haram. This, she argued, would lead to him later feeling that he had done something wrong and question his religious, although she conceded that she had not suffered these harms herself when her parents allowed her to be vaccinated.

The Local Authority and the Guardian characterised the mother’s evidence of harm as speculative and not based on any objective evidence. They pointed out that the mother had given inconsistent reasons for refusing vaccination and had not previously mentioned religious reasons when previously asked about her objections to tests performed on WSP by doctors during a psychiatric examination.

Entirely speculative

In his decision, Deputy Judge Bowen said of the mother’s arguments: “The mother has not produced ‘cogent, objective medical and/or welfare evidence demonstrating a genuine contra-indication to the administration of one or all of the routine vaccinations’. The Local Authority is not obliged to produce evidence of the benefits of those vaccinations. I therefore accept that the harm that WSP will face if he is not vaccinated includes disability, serious illness and death.”

He continued: “Set against that, the ‘harm’ that the mother complains WSP will suffer if he is vaccinated is entirely speculative and is unlikely to eventuate if the process of informing him and supporting him when he is old enough to understand is carefully and sensitively handled, as would be expected from a reasonable parent. The mother accepts that WSP will not be rejected by his faith community and that ‘many’ Muslims vaccinate their children without any conflict with their faith, not least because Islam recognises exceptions to its strictures based on darurah or necessity.”

Addressing the ECHR argument, Deputy Judge Bowen said: “Given the lack of any cogent, credible evidence of contraindication on health or welfare grounds in WSP’s case, in my judgment overriding the mother’s religious objections to those vaccinations is a necessary and proportionate interference with the mother’s right to manifest her religion. The objective – the protection of the life and health of the child and of the wider public – is sufficiently important to justify some limitation on the mother’s right to manifest her religion [and] vaccination is rationally connected to that objective.”

He concluded: “The existence of reasonable grounds for believing a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm while in the parent’s care necessitating the state’s involvement provides an objective, reasonable and proportionate justification for treating ‘public’ cases differently from ‘private’ cases, namely by giving a local authority power to override the parent’s objections to the child’s vaccination in one but not the other. Accordingly, there is no discrimination within the meaning of Article 14.”

The application was accordingly dismissed.