COVID-19 vaccinations for children: what if you can’t agree?

With COVID-19 vaccinations being rolled out to children over 12 years of age, many parents will have to make a decision about whether they want their child to be vaccinated.

This can be an especially difficult decision if the parents are separated and there is a history of conflict which complicates the co-parenting relationship. 

If both parents have parental responsibility for the child, they must agree on decisions relating to the child’s health and, if they cannot agree, they could make an application to court.

The best approach parents can take is to try to agree.  They may wish to speak to an expert together, such as the child’s GP or an expert on vaccinations to discuss the risks vs the benefits of the vaccine and the expert’s recommendation taking into account the child’s medical history and any known conditions. 

In addition to parents disagreeing, it is possible that a child may disagree with one or both of their parents about a medical decision.  When a child completely understands what is involved in a medical procedure and the risks vs benefits, the child can be classed as ‘Gillick competent’.  This means the child could make their own decision and, if they disagree with their parents deciding not to vaccinate them, they could consent to receive the vaccination themselves if they are determined to be Gillick competent by a healthcare professional.

In the event of a disagreement, the parents and child could attend mediation to discuss the options and agree on a course of action.  Child inclusive mediation could be useful here to enable the child’s wishes and feelings to be taken into account.

If no agreement can be reached, an application can be made to court under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 for a Specific Issue Order.  The recent case of M V H and P and T [2020] EWFC 93 involved a father applying for a Specific Issue Order for their two children to be vaccinated.  The court held it was in the best interests of the children to be vaccinated in accordance with the NHS schedule.  In relation to the coronavirus vaccination, the judge felt there was insufficient information regarding the vaccine available at the time of the judgment.  He did make it clear that further information and official guidance was required but that it was difficult to foresee a situation where a vaccination against coronavirus which had been approved for use in children would not be endorsed by the court as being in a child’s best interests. 

If parents disagree on a binary decision such as whether to vaccinate it may well be the child who has the last word, if they are deemed to be Gillick competent.