district court logo

GF v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki [2020] NZFC 8449

Published 05 March 2021

Application for order — dispute between guardians — vaccination schedule — vaccine — childhood immunisation — welfare and best interests of child — additional guardian — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4, 5, 13, 101, 110 & 115 — Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki v AW [2020] NZFC 4629 — Stone v Reader [2016] NZFC 6130. These proceedings were to determine a dispute between guardians as to the vaccination of a child pursuant to s 115 of the Oranga Tamariki Act ("OTA"). The child had three guardians: her parents and also the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki, as a custody order and additional guardianship order had been in place. The child was four years old and had not had any childhood vaccinations, as the father was not in favour of them. The mother had been vaccinated while pregnant with the child. At issue was whether the Court should make a direction that the child be vaccinated. In determining whether to make a direction under s 115, the views of all guardians were given equal weight. Primary consideration is the welfare and best interests of the child. Given the child's age she was unable to convey her views on the issue, but lawyer for child submitted that it was in the child's welfare and best interests for her to be vaccinated. Previous case authority supported the proposition that the Ministry of Health vaccination guidelines should be followed where no medical or expert evidence had been produced. No specific health or personal factors were submitted in this case as to why the guidelines ought not to be followed. The Judge determined that it was in the child's welfare and best interests to receive the Ministry of Health vaccination schedule. The Judge directed that the child be immunised in accordance with the schedule, subject to the child's GP agreeing that it was appropriate and in the child's welfare and best interests. The Judge directed that the child's GP develop a plan for the administration of the vaccines. Judgment Date: 24 September 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *