Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

F v F: MMR Vaccine – Welfare Need or Welfare Norm?

Document Cited authorities 15 Cited in Related
Pages284-289
DOI10.3366/elr.2014.0214
Date01 May 2014
AuthorLesley-Anne Barnes Macfarlane
Published date01 May 2014
<p>Notwithstanding extensive media coverage and commentary, the recent judgment of the High Court Family Division in <italic>F v F</italic> <xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup> </xref><fn id="fn1"><label>1</label> <p><a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/f-v-f-792567873">[2013] EWHC 2683 (Fam)</a>.</p> </fn> is not one that tells us very much about children's rights or, indeed, their welfare. Instead, the case reveals the complexities surrounding medical decision-making and the power that the media (and the state) have over us all, particularly anxious parents. <italic>F v F</italic> also sends an implicit but important warning to those acting in family disputes about medical treatment: never litigate without leading current evidence from an appropriately qualified expert about the child concerned.</p> <p>The proceedings in <italic>F v F</italic> began on 5 April 2013 when Mr F, the father of two girls (L, aged 15, and M, aged 11), issued an application seeking a “specific issue order”<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2"><sup>2</sup> </xref><fn id="fn2"><label>2</label> <p>Under the <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/children-act-1989-808257445">Children Act 1989</a> s (1): an order “giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question …” about “parental responsibility”. For the parallel Scottish provision see <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/children-scotland-act-1995-808430225">Children (Scotland) Act 1995 s 11(2)</a>(e).</p> </fn> requiring that both children receive the MMR vaccination. Mr F and the girls' mother, Mrs F, had separated in 2009 and were divorced in January 2013. Mrs F opposed her ex-husband's application for vaccination. The children, who lived with their mother, also opposed their father's application. L and M were interviewed twice by a CAFCASS reporter,<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3"><sup>3</sup> </xref><fn id="fn3"><label>3</label> <p>A reporter from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.</p> </fn> Ms Vivian, and both children met with the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Theis, to express their wishes. Neither child was a party to the proceedings.</p> THE CONTEXT OF THE DISPUTE

The parental choices that precipitated this family dispute predate the litigation by more than a decade. In 1998 Mr and Mrs F were, like many parents, influenced by the widespread publicity surrounding a research paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield which was published in The Lancet. The paper suggested that the MMR vaccine (introduced in 1988 to immunise children from the potentially serious diseases of mumps, measles and rubella) might not be safe and indicated a connection between the vaccine and the onset of autism.

In consultation with their GP, Mr and Mrs F agreed that L (who had already received the MMR at birth) should not receive the MMR booster vaccine. They also decided that M, born in 2002, should receive no MMR vaccinations at all. Dr Wakefield's research was later discredited.4

His findings were retracted by The Lancet (2010) Vol 375 Issue 9713, 445.

Debate continues within the medical community worldwide about the MMR vaccine risks, although it is worth noting that the World Health Organisation and the NHS General Medical Council recommend that children receive the vaccine. The MMR is listed on the NHS website as one of “the vaccines that are routinely offered to everyone in the UK for free.”5

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-vaccine.aspx .

In raising the proceedings, Mr F's application focused on his increasing concern, in view of the changing medical research landscape, that his daughters had not been immunised. He explained that his anxieties were exacerbated following media coverage of an outbreak of measles in Swansea in 2013. Mr F denied that he had overreacted to “tabloid hysteria”.6

F v F at para 12.

 THE DECISION

At the hearing on 31 July 2013, Ms Vivian and the adult parties gave oral evidence. Significantly, “both [parents] had the opportunity to adduce medical evidence, which was not taken up”7

Para 16.

by either of them. This prompted Theis J to observe that “the court can only make decisions on the evidence that it has in each particular case and by considering the welfare needs of each child”.8

Para 21.

In granting the father's application, thereby ruling against the wishes of the children and their mother, the judge noted that the evidence “all point[ed] one way …...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT