district court logo

Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki v AW [2020] NZFC 4629

Published 27 January 2022

Guardianship dispute — vaccination — immunisation — tetanus/diphtheria — polio vaccinations — Ministry of Health Immunisation Schedule — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 78(1), 110AA, 115 & 178 — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5 & 46R — Stone v Reader [2016] NZFC 6130 — DDS v HKS [2014] NZFC 3228 — Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki v M [2019] NZFC 10804 — B v B [2019] NZFC 7530 — Aguilar v Aguilar [2019] NZFC 7525 — N v N [2015] NZFC 3462 — DDS v HKS [2014] NZFC 3228 — Lawson v Pugh [2019] NZFC 5092 — McLaughlin v McLaughlin [2019] NZFC 7206 — M v N [2017] NZFC 2358 — D v H [2015] NZFC 6950 — A v I [2017] NZFC 3198 — Victor v Emmerson [2015] NZFC 8612 — Reid v Graham [2019] NZFC 900 — ADC v IJW FC Kaikohe FAM-2002-027-000332, 17 October 2005 — MJA v HES FC Christchurch FAM-1999-009-2203, 5 September 2005. This hearing was to determine the issue of childhood vaccinations. The child in question was subject to an interim guardianship order in favour of Oranga Tamariki (OT), and this hearing was part of the main proceedings around guardianship. There were differing views between the parents about whether the child should be vaccinated against tetanus/diphtheria and polio. The father filed an application under s 115 of the Oranga Tamariki Act to prevent the child from being vaccinated on the basis that an interim guardian should not be making decisions about medical treatment, and general opposition to vaccination. The Court prudently proceeded on the basis that the father was a guardian so that his submissions could be considered, otherwise there would have been no dispute as OT and the mother agreed to immunisation of the child. Had this been the case the immunisations could have proceeded on the basis of agreement. The father submitted that a GP had advised against vaccinating the child but provided no evidence of this, whereas the social worker's report noted that the child's paediatrician had recommended on several occasions that the child be vaccinated. The Family Court had considered the issue on various other occasions and had followed the New Zealand Ministry of Health Immunisation Schedule which recommended certain immunisations for every person based on a body of medical evidence. The Court here agreed this was the appropriate course of action to take. The Judge ordered that the child be immunised in accordance with the Ministry of Health Immunisation Schedule, and dismissed the father's application under s 115. Judgment Date: 24 June 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *