Parents disagreeing with child vaccine

clones1980

Hi. Does anyone know the legal implications if one parent vaccinated a child against the wishes of the other parent. In this case child is 9 and it would be the future covid vaccine. Parents arent together and mother has legal guardianship.

Lenar3556

Well in practical terms if the vaccine was already administered I would imagine it’s not something which could be undone.

In separation situations the courts are sometimes involved to settle disputes in the best interests of a child where there is disagreement between the child’s parents.

If there were any court orders in existence at the time this particular matter arose the nature and content of any such orders may be relevant.

The HSE / a GP etc. would be ill advised to administer a vaccination if they were on notice that one or other parent of the child in question did not consent to it being administered.

Similarly, it would in general terms, be most undesirable that one parent would act in manner which sought to disregard the wishes of the other parent, however well intentioned such action may be. Mediation might be worthwhile, otherwise a
court order should be obtained.

I myself am pro vaccine!

Scotty #

clonesbabe wrote: »

In this case child is 9 and it would be the future covid vaccine.

No covid vaccine has been approved for anyone under 16 so....

There may be a paediatric covid vaccine in the future but it's likely many years away.

Lenar3556

Scotty # wrote: »

No covid vaccine has been approved for anyone under 16 so....

There may be a paediatric covid vaccine in the future but it's likely many years away.

You might find it’s a bit closer than that. Trials on children are already commenced in UK

ByTheSea2019

Just on a practical level when a child is brought to a doctor for something like that and they have consent from one parent they go ahead. They wouldn't seek to contact another parent/guardian to ensure they agree.

Lenar3556

ByTheSea2019 wrote: »

Just on a practical level when a child is brought to a doctor for something like that and they have consent from one parent they go ahead. They wouldn't seek to contact another parent/guardian to ensure they agree.

Probably not, unless they received a letter from the objecting parent in advance instructing them not to proceed.

ByTheSea2019

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Probably not, unless they received a letter from the objecting parent in advance instructing them not to proceed.

This is true. But I think the child could just be taken to different GP. Im not commenting on the legality of that by the parent taking the child. I just think it could all be done and dusted before anyone could object to anything.

Lenar3556

ByTheSea2019 wrote: »

This is true. But I think the child could just be taken to different GP. Im not commenting on the legality of that by the parent taking the child. I just think it could all be done and dusted before anyone could object to anything.

No doubt it could if the will was there, but it’s not eithical and serves to disregard the role of the other parent. Courts might not be impressed by such a course if family law matters subsequently arise.

Peregrinus

Lenar3556 wrote: »

No doubt it could if the will was there, but it’s not eithical and serves to disregard the role of the other parent. Courts might not be impressed by such a course if family law matters subsequently arise.

I think we have to be practical. As a child I was brought to doctors many times by one or other of my parents. How was the doctor to know that my parents were not separated, or were not in disagreement about what treatment I should or should not receive? So either you accept that, as a general rule, either parent can consent on behalf of the child unless the doctor knows of special circumstances that suggest otherwise, or you adopt a protocol that always, on every occasion, the doctor seeks written consent from the parent who is not present to any treatment. And this, of course, would have to be informed consent, so the parent couldn't consent to the treatment until he or she knew what it was, which means that gettign consent would have to be done after the consultation and diagnosis, not in advance of it.

All this would put signifant burdens of compliance, delay and expense on the medical treatment of children, which is not in the interests of children generally. So, bad idea.

Lenar3556

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think we have to be practical. As a child I was brought to doctors many times by one or other of my parents. How was the doctor to know that my parents were not separated, or were not in disagreement about what treatment I should or should not receive? So either you accept that, as a general rule, either parent can consent on behalf of the child unless the doctor knows of special circumstances that suggest otherwise, or you adopt a protocol that always, on every occasion, the doctor seeks written consent from the parent who is not present to any treatment. And this, of course, would have to be informed consent, so the parent couldn't consent to the treatment until he or she knew what it was, which means that gettign consent would have to be done after the consultation and diagnosis, not in advance of it.

All this would put signifant burdens of compliance, delay and expense on the medical treatment of children, which is not in the interests of children generally. So, bad idea.

I don’t think there would be any disagreement there, but that was never suggested. What prompted by comment was the prospect of one parent bringing a child to a distant practitioner in an attempt to circumvent the express wishes of the other parent.

Scotty #

Lenar3556 wrote: »

You might find it’s a bit closer than that. Trials on children are already commenced in UK

Jaysus the Brits are losing the run of themselves now the shackles are off.

OP, your question is are there any legal implications AFTER the child has been vaccinated.... I don't think so, it's one parents word against the other and too late to do anything about it anyway.

If one parent wanted the child to not be vaccinated then some kind of injunction would need to be brought now, before a vaccine is available.

On what grounds does the parent object to the child being vaccinated?

seamus

This came before the High Court before;

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20231547.html

TL;DR the courts basically ruled that where both parents had legal guardianship, the wishes of one parent could not override the other's. That is, if one parent gets the child vaccinated there is nothing the other parent can do to stop them. That is, assuming of course that there's no specific reason (e.g. allergies) that the child should not get the vaccine.

Technically speaking a temporary court order could possibly be obtained to block the vaccination pending a ruling, but the parent who is seeking to block it is going to lose, and it's going to cost them.

Lenar3556

seamus wrote: »

the courts basically ruled that where both parents had legal guardianship, the wishes of one parent could not override the other's. That is, if one parent gets the child vaccinated there is nothing the other parent can do to stop them.

No, that wasn’t the courts position, and I wouldn’t like anyone reading this to think that they can disregard the wishes of the other parent with no consequence.

In that particular case, the mother notified the HSE that she did not consent, and quite righty the HSE circulated a notification to GP’s in the area that the inoculation was not to occur. The father brought an application under the guardianship of infants act seeking that the court determine what was in the best interests of the child and make orders accordingly.
The court decided that the vaccine was in the child’s best interests.

I would agree that the courts would typically adhere to national public health advice in making such adjudication and as such a parent wishing to prevent vaccination when the other was in favour would have a battle on their hands.

But the remedy for such disputes rests within the courts. And cases of similar principle are heard every week.

clones1980

Thanks everyone for the replies. Its me who doesnt want him vaccinated. He has all his normal vaccinations to date but for this vaccine I do not want him used as, what is my opinion a Guinea pig,. I have read all about the swine flu vaccination injuries to children and am reluctant to vaccinate on this occasion.

Lenar3556

clonesbabe wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the replies. Its me who doesnt want him vaccinated. He has all his normal vaccinations to date but for this vaccine I do not want him used as, what is my opinion a Guinea pig,. I have read all about the swine flu vaccination injuries to children and am reluctant to vaccinate on this occasion.

Your as bad as the woman in the article!

It’s always best to find common ground and get agreement if at all possible. Your concerns are understandable and no doubt there will be many others in the same position. Maybe it’s worth having a discussion with dad and agreeing that the children are not in the first group to receive any such vaccine, that there will be a period of time allowed after any vaccine becomes available to enable you both to evaluate any emerging information.

The flip side, is that COVID can be such an unknown and there may be distinct benefits in your children getting it. I would imagine it could be next year at least before anything might be available for this group in any case.

Best of luck

Scotty #

clonesbabe wrote: »

I have read all about the swine flu vaccination injuries to children and am reluctant to vaccinate on this occasion.

It affected less than 0.002%. Just 18 kids per 1,000,000.

At those odds a child would be at FAR greater risk of lifelong injury from their family pet, cycling their bike, climbing a tree, or any of the other things kids love to do. Do you keep them away from all those things too?

clones1980

Scotty # wrote: »

It affected less than 0.002%. Just 18 kids per 1,000,000.

At those odds a child would be at FAR greater risk of lifelong injury from their family pet, cycling their bike, climbing a tree, or any of the other things kids love to do. Do you keep them away from all those things too?

The swine flu vaccine is only part reason I dont want to vaccinate him. This is a very new vaccine and no one knows the long term side effects yet. Children are very low risk from covid. I do not see the point in possibly causing harm to my child from a vaccine that he really does not need.

Scotty #

clonesbabe wrote: »

Children are very low risk from covid....

They are and that's why I don't think your original concerns will ever come into play.

Once we get all the vulnerable vacc'ed and the hospital numbers stay low I don't think there'll be any call to mass vaccinate minors.

seamus

Lenar3556 wrote: »

No, that wasn’t the courts position, and I wouldn’t like anyone reading this to think that they can disregard the wishes of the other parent with no consequence.

In that particular case, the mother notified the HSE that she did not consent, and quite righty the HSE circulated a notification to GP’s in the area that the inoculation was not to occur.

Sure. But this is a bit of a weird area. Legally there is nothing really stopping one guardian from unilaterally getting the child vaccinated. Like feeding the child McDonald's, taking them to a climbing wall or getting their ears pierced, where the welfare of the child is not in danger, the power of one guardian to disagree really only extends as far as things they can physically enforce.

There is a loose requirement for medical treatment that the consent of all guardians is obtained. But it's "loose" in so far as if they have the consent of one guardian and the other has not expressly denied consent, then the hospital/GP is not obliged to seek it out. I have seen it happen (usually out of sexism), but it's not consistently done and there is no legal requirement to do so.

In effect, if the mother has not told the HSE that immunisation should not be performed, then there is nothing stopping the father. Any "consequence" could only come about from the mother taking him to court, but ultimately history shows us that she will lose.

Peregrinus

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I don’t think there would be any disagreement there, but that was never suggested. What prompted by comment was the prospect of one parent bringing a child to a distant practitioner in an attempt to circumvent the express wishes of the other parent.

Yes, I know. But what kind of a rule would you need to circumvent that?

The problem is one parent bringing the child to a doctor who is unaware that the other parent objects to the treatment. But it will always be trivially easy for one parent to find such a doctor because, generally, the objections of the other parent is something that a doctor wouldn't know about. How would he b become aware of it?

So what kind of a rule do you need to preven this? The only rule that could work is a rule which requires a doctor treating a child at the request of one parent to ascertain that the other parent consents to the treatment, as a standard practice.

Mellor

clonesbabe wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the replies. Its me who doesnt want him vaccinated. He has all his normal vaccinations to date but for this vaccine I do not want him used as, what is my opinion a Guinea pig,. I have read all about the swine flu vaccination injuries to children and am reluctant to vaccinate on this occasion.

Take to the child mother. Explain your concerns. But ultimately if she is the sole guardian, then you are just offering an outside opinion, legally.


As mentioned, 9 year olds are currently being vaccinated.
If there were going to start there would be testing first. It won't be an open trial on the public.

Lenar3556

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. But what kind of a rule would you need to circumvent that?

The problem is one parent bringing the child to a doctor who is unaware that the other parent objects to the treatment. But it will always be trivially easy for one parent to find such a doctor because, generally, the objections of the other parent is something that a doctor wouldn't know about. How would he b become aware of it?

So what kind of a rule do you need to preven this? The only rule that could work is a rule which requires a doctor treating a child at the request of one parent to ascertain that the other parent consents to the treatment, as a standard practice.

I’m not suggesting there is need for any change in the rules, on balance I think the current consent arrangements are reasonable and proportionate. I am saying that it is reprehensible that one parent would act in a manner which sought to exclude the wishes of an equal guardian, and that doing so may attract consequences in future family law matters.

I wouldn’t necessarily accept that it would be trivially easy to circumvent the other guardians wishes - If the other guardian felt strongly, he/she would be likely to sent a circular outlining his objection far and wide. In the case referred previously, the HSE circulated the information to practitioners on receipt of notification themselves.

Mellor

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I’m not suggesting there is need for any change in the rules, on balance I think the current consent arrangements are reasonable and proportionate. I am saying that it is reprehensible that one parent would act in a manner which sought to exclude the wishes of an equal guardian, and that doing so may attract consequences in future family law matters.

I wouldn’t necessarily accept that it would be trivially easy to circumvent the other guardians wishes - If the other guardian felt strongly, he/she would be likely to sent a circular outlining his objection far and wide. In the case referred previously, the HSE circulated the information to practitioners on receipt of notification themselves.

Wouldn’t circulating letter like that also be described as “excluding the wishes of an equal guardian”, and therefore just as reprehensible.

If the parents are equal guardians. They need to decide privately. Does not appear to apply in the OP’s case.

GerardKeating

clonesbabe wrote: »

Parents arent together and mother has legal guardianship.

Guardianship or Custody?

Normally both parents have equal Guardianship, assuming they were married at the time of birth, if not, the mother would have sole Guardianship unless/untill father applied for Guardianship.

clonesbabe wrote: »

Hi everyone..just wondering is it possible to add my dads name as an additional middle name for my son. My son is 9 and this is something I've regretted for years. Tonight my son asked why he only had one grandas middle name. Is is possible to legally add an additional middle name to a 9 year old?

IF you don't have Guardianship or Custody? how would you add the middle name

clonesbabe wrote: »

Children are very low risk from covid. I do not see the point in possibly causing harm to my child from a vaccine that he really does not need.

But what about the Grand Parents, other elderly/vunerable people whom might be a risk.

Unless the mother enroles the child in a vaccine trial, then there is no likley hood of them getting a covid vaccination in the near to medium term future.

Since you do not have Custody, (and maybe Guardianships) if a vaccine comes available for your childs age group, short of going to court for an injunction preventing this, there is little you can do.

Most childern were offered the flu vaccine this year...

Is the mother on Boards.ie ???

Scotty #

GerardKeating wrote: »

Guardianship or Custody?

Normally both parents have equal Guardianship, assuming they were married at the time of birth, if not, the mother would have sole Guardianship unless/untill father applied for Guardianship.



IF you don't have Guardianship or Custody? how would you add the middle name





But what about the Grand Parents, other elderly/vunerable people whom might be a risk.

Unless the mother enroles the child in a vaccine trial, then there is no likley hood of them getting a covid vaccination in the near to medium term future.

Since you do not have Custody, (and maybe Guardianships) if a vaccine comes available for your childs age group, short of going to court for an injunction preventing this, there is little you can do.

Most childern were offered the flu vaccine this year...

Is the mother on Boards.ie ???

It's the mother you are talking to.

Calahonda52

Scotty # wrote: »

It affected less than 0.002%. Just 18 kids per 1,000,000.

At those odds a child would be at FAR greater risk of lifelong injury from their family pet, cycling their bike, climbing a tree, or any of the other things kids love to do. Do you keep them away from all those things too?

Except they always sue someone now

headtheball14

clonesbabe wrote: »

The swine flu vaccine is only part reason I dont want to vaccinate him. This is a very new vaccine and no one knows the long term side effects yet. Children are very low risk from covid. I do not see the point in possibly causing harm to my child from a vaccine that he really does not need.

a lot of your arguments could also be made in relation to covid,
We don’t know the long term impact of covid, some people are at very high risk, we need a certain level of population immunity to ensure it does not spread.

It’s natural to protect and want to do the best for your child,I would say, there is no issue today or tomorrow in relation to your child, there is a lot of research into both covid and the vaccinations.
By the time this actually becomes something you need to make a decision over there should be a lot more available to support you in that. I’m pro vaccination but I certainly didn’t say last year before vaccines and evidence were produced that I would take anything. I’m reassured by the evidence available that it is safe and will happily sign up when i get my chance.

Lenar3556

Mellor wrote: »

Wouldn’t circulating letter like that also be described as “excluding the wishes of an equal guardian”, and therefore just as reprehensible.

If the parents are equal guardians. They need to decide privately. Does not appear to apply in the OP’s case.

Well clearly it would be in everyone’s best interest that agreement be reached between the parties.

But no, if there is a dispute there are mechanisms whereby the courts will adjudicate in the best interests of the child.

Lenar3556

Mellor wrote: »

Take to the child mother. Explain your concerns. But ultimately if she is the sole guardian, then you are just offering an outside opinion, legally.


As mentioned, 9 year olds are currently being vaccinated.
If there were going to start there would be testing first. It won't be an open trial on the public.

The OP is the child’s mother. It is entirely possible that the child’s father is a guardian also - if not he may apply to become one.

9 year olds are not currently being vaccinated. There are early stage trials being conducted in the UK presently.

Mellor

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The OP is the child’s mother. It is entirely possible that the child’s father is a guardian also - if not he may apply to become one.

They refer to “mother” in 3rd person, as the guardian. If the OP is the mother, and father has guardianship also then the OP is poorly written.

Scotty #

Mellor wrote: »

They refer to “mother” in 3rd person, as the guardian. If the OP is the mother, and father has guardianship also then the OP is poorly written.

Did her username not give it away? clonesbabe... as in from Clones, and a babe!

GerardKeating

Scotty # wrote: »

Did her username not give it away? clonesbabe... as in from Clones, and a babe!

I actually took "Clones" as the plural of Clone...

clonesbabe

clonesbabe wrote: »

Hi. Does anyone know the legal implications if one parent vaccinated a child against the wishes of the other parent. In this case child is 9 and it would be the future covid vaccine. Parents arent together and mother has legal guardianship.

Does the mother have sole legal guardianship?

If both parents have joint guardianship and they can't reach agreement, either parent can seek then direction of the court to waive the consent of the other.

If the father doesn't have guardianship, he can seek to establish it any time up to the child is 18.

fits

I think it’s a bit premature to devote much energy to this. Until clinical trials in children have concluded and vaccine approved. So I wouldn’t go into battle over it yet.

karlitob

clonesbabe wrote: »

Thanks everyone for the replies. Its me who doesnt want him vaccinated. He has all his normal vaccinations to date but for this vaccine I do not want him used as, what is my opinion a Guinea pig,. I have read all about the swine flu vaccination injuries to children and am reluctant to vaccinate on this occasion.

Did you read all about the children who got swine flu? Didn’t think so.

575,400 people died of swine flu. 27 people in ireland. 1000 people needed to be hospitalised. In august 2010, the who declared the swine flu pandemic was over.

As a result pandemrix and celvapan vaccines have not been used here since 2011.

Thank you Science.