As public health considerations intersect with parental rights, the question of whether a child should be vaccinated remains an issue the courts are increasingly asked to resolve where parents hold opposing views regarding whether their child(ren) should receive routine childhood immunisations.
While public health policy and clinical guidance strongly support vaccination as a key tool in preventing the spread of infectious diseases, vaccinations are not a legal requirement. As a result, disputes can and do arise between parents when determining whether their child(ren) should be vaccinated or not. This article explains how the family courts in England and Wales approach parental disagreements over childhood vaccinations.
Are parents becoming more reluctant to vaccinate their child(ren) against common childhood illnesses?
According to the latest annual data on childhood vaccines reported by the UK Health Security Agency between April 2024 and March 2025, 18.6% of children (almost 1 in 5) have not received their pre-school booster jab. Over the last 10 years, the lowest uptake rate for pre-school booster jabs has been found in London at 81.4%. Outside London, the coverage has been at 85%. Health Authorities warn that at least 95% coverage is required to increase chances of preventing virus or disease outbreaks.
This growing trend shows that parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children against common childhood illnesses. This could be due to a variety of factors, including reduced access to healthcare and GP appointments, and the spread of misinformation regarding vaccine safety particularly via social media. This places children at an increased risk of contracting serious diseases due to the lowering immunity across the country.
Who decides whether a child should be vaccinated?
In England and Wales, vaccinations are not compulsory legally. For children aged 16 or 17, the decision to receive a vaccine is generally theirs to make. However, when it comes to children under the age of 16, the decision rests with those who have “parental responsibility”. Therefore, it is up to the parents (or those with parental responsibility) of a child to decide whether a child should be vaccinated against specific viruses or diseases.
Parents who have parental responsibility for a child have equal rights in relation to making decisions for their child(ren). Parental responsibility is defined in Section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property”.
If important decisions for a child cannot be agreed between parents, such as in relation to medical treatment and immunisation, one parent will need to make an application to the court for a specific issue order (an order where the court gives permission for the child(ren) to be vaccinated) or a prohibited steps order (an order of the court preventing the child(ren) from being vaccinated).
What are the courts approach to vaccinations?
In several recent cases, when considering whether the child(ren) should receive medical treatment and immunisations, the court has reinforced the view that the child’s best interests, is the primary concern.
The issue of whether a child should be vaccinated was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of M v H Private Law Vaccinations [2020] EWFC 93. In this case, the father had made a Specific Issue Order application for the children to receive the MMR vaccine and the COVID-19 vaccine. At that time, due to the unavailability of public guidance on the COVID-19 vaccine, the court did not address this issue. However, in respect of the MMR vaccine, the court reaffirmed that routine immunisation in accordance with NHS schedules was in the children’s best interests. The Court confirmed that it was very difficult to foresee a situation in which a vaccine approved for children and endorsed by official guidance would not be in a child’s best interests.
In Re H (A Child) (Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664, the Court of Appeal confirmed that vaccinations approved by Public Health England (now the UK Health Security Agency) and included in the routine immunisation schedule are highly likely to be in a child’s best interests. The Court further noted that the only instances in which a vaccine may not be in the child’s best interests is if there is established research “indicating significant concern for the efficacy and/or safety” of a vaccination in individual cases. The Court also reiterated that, in private law disputes, neither parent has greater authority than the other in decision-making, and where agreement cannot be reached, a judicial determination is required.
Gillick Competency
A child under 16 may consent, independently of parents, to medical treatment, including vaccination, if assessed as “Gillick competent”. This concept comes from the case of Gillick v West Norfolk [1985] where the House of Lords held that a minor under 16 may consent to medical treatment if they possess sufficient understanding and intelligence to fully comprehend what is involved. This case allowed for the fact that parental responsibility and control diminish as the child matures.
Whether a child is Gillick competent is assessed using criteria such as the age of the child, their understanding of the treatment (benefits and risks), and their ability to explain their views about the treatment. If deemed to be Gillick competent, the child can make their own decision about vaccination.
Where a dispute over vaccination is before the courts, and a Gillick competent child wants to be vaccinated, generally, the court will respect that choice even when the parents object because it is presumed that vaccinations approved by public health authorities are in the best interests of the child.
The court will only challenge the Gillick competent child’s wishes where there is a clear welfare concern or where the competence itself is unclear.
Do I have to go to court if I disagree with my ex-partner about vaccinating our child?
Court proceedings should be a last resort. If you and your ex-partner cannot agree, consider alternative dispute resolution methods such as:
- Mediation
- Collaborative law
These options are usually more cost-effective, less stressful, and more likely to result in a resolution that puts the child’s welfare first.
Practical Guidance for Parents
Parents involved in vaccination disputes should consider:
- Gathering medical evidence from qualified healthcare professionals;
- Documenting communication with the other parent;
- Avoiding emotional arguments and focusing on child-centred reasoning; and
- Seeking early legal advice or mediation to avoid prolonged litigation.
Courts prefer parents to resolve disputes collaboratively, and mediation can often narrow or even resolve disagreements.
Conclusion
Childhood vaccinations in family law represent a complex intersection of medical science, parental rights, and child welfare. Parents in disagreement on whether to vaccinate their child should be conscious of the court’s current position with respect to childhood vaccinations, in particular routine vaccinations. While courts respect parental autonomy, they ultimately prioritise the child’s health and best interests.
Please note that this article is provided for general information only. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of this article.
Authors: Kandice Phillips, Solicitor, Nina Hunjan, Paralegal and Aiza Khan, Trainee Solicitor at Dawson Cornwell LLP www.dawsoncornwell.com