Vaccinating Children: The COVID-19 Family Law Jurisprudence.

J Law Med

Barrister, Castan Chambers, Melbourne, Australia; Judge, Supreme Court of the Republic of Nauru; Professor of Law and Professorial Fellow, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University; Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.

Published: August 2022

Australian, New Zealand, English and Canadian courts have made a number of orders, often in the context of parenting disputes, requiring children to be vaccinated. Complementary therapy options have generally not been permitted as an alternative to mainstream vaccination. Debates about parental entitlements to make decisions about such matters have taken place in the context of contested family law litigation during the COVID-19 era. However, by contrast with Ontario Superior Court of Justice decisions in 2022, a series of Australian decisions, including the judgment of Sutherland CJ in Clay & Dallas [2022] FCWA 18, have developed the law further, having regard to both the capacity of a minor to consent to vaccination and reviewing a variety of factors going to children's best interests at different junctures during the pandemic, finding it generally to be in the best interests of children to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. This is likely to flow back into curial decision-making about vaccinations more broadly, as well as cognate matters.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

family law
8
best interests
8
vaccinating children
4
children covid-19
4
covid-19 family
4
law jurisprudence
4
jurisprudence australian
4
australian zealand
4
zealand english
4
english canadian
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!