M v H ( private law vaccination) [2020] EWFC 93
MacDonald J granted a specific issue order authorising the administration of vaccinations to two children, ages 6 and 4 in accordance with the NHS vaccination schedule. In doing so he considered the role of the court in this area, the application of the principles set out in Re H (A Child: Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664 in private law disputes, the use of expert evidence and the approach to proportionality under Article 8.
There was a background private law dispute which was being dealt with by a district judge where, following a fact-finding hearing there had been a series of hearings to re-establish the children spending time with the father. A final hearing was listed on 21 December 2020. The father s original application had included an application for a specific issue order on MMR vaccination but that was amended to encompass all the normal childhood vaccinations. The DJ (in liaison with the
fight to see his young son gus. patrick and his former girlfriend had gus with in vitro. now since they have broken up she will not let him see his young son. because of a loophole sperm donors are not allowed to get rights to their family. he s appealing the case. it s another story where men are not allowed to see their kids. i think there s a benefit to having two pair werents in a household. he wants to have a role in his life. why won t they let him have it? because of the custody law. i will give you more information if you want standing up for gus information. you have a dad who wants to be involved in his life they won t let him. it is time for. i hate these people. that s not attractive. let s roll this. this is a public proposal that
gus. patrick and his former girlfriend had gus through in vitro fertilization. it was a decision they made together. now since they have broken up she will not let him see his young son, and because of a loophole in california law, sperm donors are not allowed to, i guess, get rights to their family. he s appealing this case. but it s another it s another story where men are not allowed to see their kids. i think there s a benefit to two parents in a household. this is a father who wants to have a role in his son s life and they won t let him have it. why won t they let him have it? because of this custody law. i m tweet more about it if you want more info for standing up for gus. it s a growing trend of keeping dads out of their kids lives. you have a dad who wants to be involved and they won t let him you re up. it s time for i hate these people. i know. that s not attractive. let s roll this. this is a public proposal that happened on cnbc.
treaty we don t have jurisdiction. the chief justice says, well, that is not right. she shouldn t have left with the child before the appeal was filed and probably the appellate court should have heard the appeal. my guess is the supreme court today will say to the federal appeals court in atlanta, hear the appeal. decide if the trial judge was right or wrong. where is this child more accustomed to living? with his father in alabama? or with his mother in scotland? that is what the treaty tells judges they have to decide. trace: it comes down to where the child normally lives but the fact the girl is in scotland does that make the argument moot? judge napolitano: it makes the mother s case stronger because a principle having ruled on more custody cases than i would like to think, i didn t have gray hair until i got 9 custody cases, a basic principles of custody law is, you can t move the child around too much. even if the child is with the