Tower Hamlets Council allowed to arrange vaccinations for child despite parents’ protests
- Credit: Mike Brooke
Council social services bosses have been given the go-ahead to arrange vaccinations for a 10-month-old boy against his parents’ wishes.
A High Court judge has approved a Tower Hamlets Council plan to organise a number of vaccinations for the little boy.
Mr Justice Hayden outlined detail of the case in a ruling published on Friday, January 7 after analysing arguments at a private hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.
He has not named the little boy, who is now in council care and lives with foster carers.
The boy's father objected to the youngster becoming a "creature of the state".
You may also want to watch:
His mother raised concerns about vaccinations making him ill.
Mr Justice Hayden concluded that vaccinations were in the little boy's best interests.
- 1 14 charged with alleged drug dealing and money laundering offences
- 2 Road and rail round-up: Disruptions to travel in east London this week
- 3 Panel finds gross misconduct proven against Pc arrested on suspicion of drug dealing
- 4 19 arrested and cash seized in East End dawn drug raids
- 5 Police officers save lives in two sperate emergencies on same shift
- 6 Prison sentence increased for 'violent and dangerous' man
- 7 Police called as furious families told to quit Bow's 'dangerous' block
- 8 Man, 19, charged after alleged sexual assaults in Tower Hamlets
- 9 The most expensive houses sold in your east London borough in August
- 10 Volunteers patrol streets after Isle of Dogs fatal stabbing
In June last year the couple lost a High Court fight relating to the registration of the boy's birth.
Tower Hamlets Council staff said the couple had not registered the boy's birth and were in breach of legislation governing the registration of births.
Mr Justice Hayden decided that the council was an "institutional parent" and said a member of staff could step in and register the birth.
At that hearing he indicated that the couple's decision not to register the birth stemmed from the boy's father's "unusual and somewhat eccentric" beliefs about the concept of personal "sovereignty".
He said the boy's mother was "not prepared" to register the birth herself, but was "not opposed" to somebody else registering it.
He added: "The essence of the father's objection is his belief that registration will cause his son to become controlled by a state which he perceives to be authoritarian and capricious," said the judge in his ruling.
"(The baby) has been given a name and surname but his father strenuously resists registration."
At the June hearing he said the 1953 Birth and Deaths Registration Act required a birth to be registered within 42 days of a child being born.
"In this case, the 42-day period for registration has ended," he added.
"It is manifestly in (the baby's) best interest for his birth to be registered, in order that he may be recognised as a citizen and entitled to the benefits of such citizenship."