Father Seeks Orders Facilitating Vaccination of Children
Lamos & Radin (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC2F 167 (18 February 2022)
The father seeks orders to facilitate the two children of the parties receiving COVID-19 vaccinations. The independent children’s lawyer (“the ICL”) supports the father’s application. Final parenting orders were made for the father to have sole parental responsibility for X. The Court, in deciding this dispute, relied upon the Family Law Act 1975.
Facts:
The father seeks orders to facilitate the two children of the parties receiving COVID-19 vaccinations. The eldest child, Y, is aged 16. He lives with the mother and currently spends no time with the father. The father seeks orders compelling the mother to arrange for Y to be vaccinated.
The youngest child, X, is aged 11 and lives with the father. She currently spends little or no time with the mother. The father seeks permission to make all necessary arrangements to have her vaccinated. The independent children’s lawyer (“the ICL”) supports the father’s application.
The father’s solicitors had written to the mother on 25 January 2022 seeking her consent to the father arranging to have X vaccinated before the school year re-commenced on 31 January 2022 and asking whether the mother had made arrangements to have Y vaccinated. The mother did not respond. Two days ago, on 16 February 2022, after the vaccination application was filed but before it was heard, final parenting orders were made in the substantive parenting proceedings. They included an order for the father to have sole parental responsibility for X.
The order authorises him to make decisions about major long-term decisions concerning X, which includes vaccinations. The orders require him to consult the mother and take into account her views before making any such decision.
Issue:
Whether or not an order should be made authorizing the father to arrange for Y to be vaccinated.
Applicable law:
Family Law Act 1975 s 65D - provides that equal shared parental responsibility requires the parties to consult each other and make a genuine effort to reach a joint decision about major long-term issues concerning him.
Family Law Act 1975 s 67ZC - provides that the Court is empowered to reach a joint decision about major long-term issues concerning Y.
Analysis:
The substantive parenting orders provide for the parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for Y. This requires the parties to consult each other and make a genuine effort to reach a joint decision about major long-term issues concerning him. The father and ICL relied on documentary evidence in the form of fact sheets and information provided to the public by the following Australian government organisations which says that COVID-19 is a virus that can cause serious illness, death and long-term health issues and that despite the (low) risk of adverse side effects, vaccination of children and young people is strongly encouraged. The mother relied on information provided to the public by the TGA about adverse events following vaccinations.
There is no doubt on this evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines carry with them a risk of harm to the recipient. However, the information provided by these reputable Australian organisations indicates that, as a general proposition, the risks are significantly outweighed by the benefits. The evidence presented by the father and the ICL was more credible and persuasive than that presented by the mother. The Court is satisfied that the father could be trusted to make sensible decisions in relation to X’s health and welfare.
Conclusion:
The father's application for a specific order in relation to having X vaccinated against COVID-19 is unnecessary and is dismissed. The father is hereby authorised to arrange for the child Y, born in 2015, to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus without the consent of the mother, provided Y consents to the vaccination. The application in a proceeding filed on 1 February 2022 and all other extant applications are hereby dismissed.
