Guardianship dispute — COVID-19 vaccinations — global pandemic — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 46R. In this dispute between the guardians of a young child, the applicant mother sought a court order that the child be vaccinated against COVID-19. She submitted that the child wanted to be vaccinated, that he was in contact with vulnerable family members, and that being unvaccinated was preventing him from attending outings and activities with family and friends. The respondent father opposed the application, arguing that the COVID vaccine was unsafe and more dangerous than COVID itself. The child's general practitioner had submitted evidence that the child had no particular sensitivity to the vaccine and that the risks of contracting COVID were greater than any risks from the vaccine. Lawyer for the child reported that the child himself favoured vaccination. The Court found that vaccination was in the child's best interests, and ordered that he be vaccinated as soon as possible. The Court also declined the respondent's request that the vaccination occur in Christchurch, reasoning that such a requirement would be of no value to the child. Judgment Date: 28 January 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *