Immunisation - opposition of residential parent - best interests test

In re C (A Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights); In re F (A Child) (Immunisation: Parental Rights): FD (Mr Justice Sumner): 13 June 2003

In each case, the fathers, who had parental responsibility and contact, sought a specific issue order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 that the children, aged four and ten respectively, should receive the range of immunisation appropriate to their age on the basis that, while there were some risks, current medical research and opinion was that those were outweighed by the potential advantages.

The mothers were opposed to immunisation on the grounds of unacceptable risk and the upset it would cause them.

The hearing was in chambers and is reported with leave of the judge on the basis of non-identification of the parties and their location.

Jonathan Cohen QC, Kate Branigan and Geoffrey Kelly for the fathers in each case; Elizabeth Anne Gumbel QC, Lucinda Davis and Mark Courtney-Stewart for the mothers; Vera Mayer and Jane Probyn for CAFCASS Legal.

Held, granting the applications, that article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights permitted interference in family life by the court for the protection of health; that while difficult medical decisions were best taken by parents, in cases of dispute between them it was for the court to reach a decision based on what was in the children's best interests; that, although the residential parent did not have greater rights than an absent parent who was entitled to be consulted on major decisions in the child's life, compelling evidence was required where the proposal was for invasive medical intervention to which the residential parent was opposed; and that, since there was compelling evidence that age-appropriate immunisation was in the children's best interests, that should prevail over the opposition from their mothers.

Care proceedings - disclosure of confidential report - guardian's entitlement to disclosure not overridden by public interest immunity

In re J (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure): FD (Mr Justice Wall): 9 May 2003

Although the local authority had voluntarily accommodated the child since birth in October 2001, care proceedings had only been instituted in September 2002.

On 16 October 2002, the foster father was arrested in connection with police inquiries into child pornography.

The child was removed to other foster carers and medically examined; the mother, whose consent was required, was not given the true reason for either of these events.

At the first hearing of the interim care order application, those events were, seemingly deliberately, withheld by the local authority from the court.

Subsequently, the local authority resisted making full disclosure, despite repeated applications by the child's guardian and an order of the court, claiming public interest immunity, a duty of confidentiality to the foster carers and the fact that the independent inquiry report into the events, compiled by the local authority in response to the complaint by the justices about the manner in which the case had been handled, did not relate to the child.

The case was heard in chambers and is reported with leave on the basis of strict anonymity.

Held, granting the application for disclosure, that In re R (Care Proceedings: Disclosure) [2000] 3 FCR 721, made it clear that section 42 of the Children Act 1989 should be given its literal meaning; that the report was plainly prepared in connection with the care proceedings and equally plainly related to the child concerned; and that the question of public interest immunity did not arise since section 42(3) of the 1989 Act gave the guardian the right to inspect documents 'regardless of any enactment or rule of law which would otherwise prevent the record in question being admissible in evidence'.