The Supreme Court has dismissed a mother’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash a Circuit Court order directing that her son receive booster vaccinations against her wishes.
The appeal concerned a five-year-old boy, identified in the judgment as T.B., and booster injections for 4-in-1 and MMR vaccines. His father, who had been appointed his legal guardian, applied under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 for the vaccinations to proceed. The District Court made that order on 23 May 2012. On 14 June, the Circuit Court affirmed it.
The mother then sought judicial review. The High Court dismissed her application, and she appealed to the Supreme Court. In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2013, Mr Justice MacMenamin, with whom the Court’s other judges agreed, dismissed the appeal.
The mother argued that her constitutional rights gave her a veto over the vaccination decision. The Supreme Court said that neither guardian had a predetermined veto. Under the 1964 Act, the child’s welfare is the first and paramount consideration, and a court may decide a question affecting that welfare when guardians disagree. The father’s appointment as guardian gave him a right to be involved in decisions about his son, the Court said, and the mother’s status did not place her views above his in the court’s assessment.
The Court distinguished this dispute between two guardians from a case involving married parents jointly opposing state vaccination. It also rejected the mother’s reliance on section 4 of the Health Act 1953, which says that the Act does not impose an obligation to accept health services or treatment. The Court said the present case concerned a court’s welfare decision on an application by one guardian, opposed by the other, and that the 1953 provision did not displace the guardianship law.
The mother also argued that the Circuit Court should have adjourned the appeal so she could present evidence about alleged medical risks. The Supreme Court noted that she had not presented medical or expert evidence in the District Court, and that the adjournment request in the Circuit Court came only after the judge had ruled against her legal argument. It found no error in the judge’s decision to finish the hearing.
The Supreme Court stressed that the judicial review concerned whether the Circuit Court had exceeded its jurisdiction or made a legal error going to jurisdiction. It did not assess the merits of the mother’s claims about vaccine safety, efficacy or necessity.