A court case has ruled in favour of Islington Council’s attempt to vaccinate a child in care, after their mother tried to block routine immunisations.
The High Court decided that the eight-month-old girl should be vaccinated despite her mother’s objections, concluding that withholding the jabs would leave her at risk of serious childhood diseases.
The case centred on an infant known as P, who has been under the north London council’s guardianship since February following concerns that her mother, identified only as Ms S, could not meet her or her older siblings’ basic care needs. The court heard that while in the council’s care, P was due to receive her regular NHS vaccinations, which the mother refused to consent to.
Ms S argued that she believed there was a link between vaccines and autism, a claim which scientific research has repeatedly found to be false. She also said she feared the effects of “all those chemicals” on her daughter, describing the baby as “too tiny to be pumped with vaccinations.” Despite assurances and evidence presented in court, she insisted it should remain her choice to delay or refuse the jabs.
Mr Justice McDonald, presiding over the High Court, disagreed. In his ruling, he said that not vaccinating the child would expose her to the risk of infection “at a very young age when she remains vulnerable.” The judge found that the council’s decision to proceed with routine immunisations was in the child’s best interests and therefore lawful.
The decision followed several months of legal and welfare proceedings concerning the infant’s living arrangements. In July, Islington Council proposed that the baby could live with her mother at the family home under supervision while longer-term care decisions were made. During this period, Ms S continued to refuse permission for her daughter to be vaccinated. Concerned for the child’s welfare, the council went ahead with arranging the appointment in line with medical advice, prompting the mother to take the matter to the High Court.
The Islington Council vaccination court case heard that Ms S maintained her objections were based on online information she had seen claiming that thousands of children had died from preventable diseases, which she viewed as a low risk compared to the overall child population.
Ms S also said she believed ethnic minority children were more adversely affected by vaccines, though no scientific evidence supports this view.
According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Mr Justice McDonald “gently pressed” the mother during the hearing, explaining that there were no scientific studies linking vaccinations to autism or ADHD. Despite this, Ms S continued to insist that she might allow her child to receive the jabs only when she was older.
Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities in England have the power to authorise medical treatment, including vaccinations, for children who are in their care, even if parents object.
While there is currently no law in the UK that makes vaccination compulsory, the NHS strongly advises parents to follow its recommended immunisation schedule. Babies are typically given their first vaccines at eight weeks of age to protect them against diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough.
The court’s ruling means Islington Council is now permitted to proceed with the routine immunisations for the child while she remains under its guardianship. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the welfare of the child takes precedence in public care decisions, particularly where medical treatment is considered essential to protect against preventable illness.
The Islington Council vaccination court case represents a victory for informed scientific understanding over unfounded independent ‘research’.
Although vaccination remains voluntary across the UK, courts have repeatedly upheld the position that local authorities can act in the best interests of a child’s health when parents decline evidence-based medical care.
For Islington Council, the decision provides legal clarity on how such cases should be handled when parents object to routine treatment.
For public health professionals, it serves as a reminder of the continuing challenge of addressing vaccine misinformation and ensuring that vulnerable children receive timely protection against preventable diseases.
