29 Apr 2015
Immunisation in Australia

Vaccine preventable diseases in children include:
• Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
• Hepatitis A
• Hepatitis B
• Diptheria
• Tetanus
• Human papillomavirus (HPV) (12-13 years of age)
• Influenza
• Meningococcal disease
• Pneumococcal disease
• Pertussis (whooping cough)
• Poliomyelitis
• Rotavirus (cause of severe gastroenteritis in children)
• Varicella-zoster (chickenpox) 
• Mumps
• Measles
• Tetanus
Children are immunised at birth and at the 6 month, 12 month, 18 month and 4 year mark.  Now too children are immunised against HPV at the 12 – 14 year mark.
The Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, along with a number of other organisations, monitors rates of immunisation in each state and nationally.  The coverage data for the December 2013, March 2014, June 2014 and September 2014 quarters across Australia (in relation to fully immunised non indigenous children) is as follows:
– 12 – < 15 months – 90.57% 
– 24 – < 27 months – 92.48%
– 60 – < 63 months – 91.98%
The number of parents choosing to not immunise their children (called conscientious objection to immunisation) has risen significantly in recent times.  Over the past 14 years the number of conscientious objectors (that is, the number of children for whom parents have completed the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register Conscientious Objection Form (“CI Form)  has risen as follows:
Number children with conscientious objection recorded
31 December 1999 – 4,271
31 December 2007 – 20,737
31 December 2013 – 35,698
These figures of course reflect only those parents who have completed a CI Form.  It is logical that there may be others who have chosen to not immunise and have not completed a CI Form.  By way of background, the CI Form (IMMu12), must be signed by a doctor and sent to the Register where a conscientious objection is recorded on the ACIR – the form is required so that the child can meet the immunisation requirements for receipt of family assistance payments where their parents do not want them to be immunised.  
What is the issue for family law?
It is becoming more commonplace for separating or separated parents to disagree on the issue of whether to immunise their children, or whether to continuing to immunise their children once they have commenced the program of immunisation.  
A parental conflict over immunisation also comes into play when parents seek to travel with their children to a destination that carries a strong recommendation regarding immunisation against certain diseases.  
If either parent files an application in the Family Court seeking orders that a child be immunised, or alternatively seeking an injunction preventing the other party from immunising a child the conflicted couple will find themselves before the Family Court.
What will the Court decide in situations where parents can’t agree on immunisation?
There have been a number of Family Court decisions in recent years dealing directly with immunisation in the context of an overarching parental conflict.  The decisions in these cases provide very helpful guidance to parents who find themselves involved in proceedings over the issue of immunisation.  Two are highlighted below.
Kingsford & Kingsford [2012] FamCA 889
In this case the Mother sought orders by way of an amended response that the child be immunised in accordance with homoepathic principles (called homeoprophylaxis).  She also sought an injunction preventing the Father from immunising the child without her written permission.  The Mother’s amended response arose out of an incident involving the Father’s wife (Mrs Kingsford) where she took the child to a medical centre and the child was immunised in the usual fashion for a child of her age.  Up until that point the Mother had followed the homeoprophylaxis immunisation approach.
The court considered medical evidence presented by two doctors and the mother and father.  The question before the Court was whether it was in the child’s best interests to continue to be traditionally vaccinated, or to continue to receive homeoprophylaxis.  The court confirmed the approach – that the best interests of the child was the paramount consideration, but not the only consideration.
The Court considered the evidence of Drs G and J and found that the efficacy of homeopathic vaccines in preventing infectious diseases had not been adequately 
and scientifically demonstrated.  Further the Court stated that as the child was already 8 years old, the risk of her contracting vaccine preventable diseases was reduced but was not nil.  Her Honour Judge Bennett did accept that both forms of immunisation carried some low level of risk, but found that the risk of harm of a traditional vaccination program was not so great as to outweigh the risk of infection.
Duke-Randall & Randall [2014] FamCA 126
This decision involved two children, aged 8 and 7.  Neither had been vaccinated, and both had suffered bouts of whooping cough.  Interestingly the Father gave evidence that during his cohabitation with the mother there has been a lot of debate about the issue of vaccination and that during the marriage he had agreed with the mother’s anti-vaccination views to keep the peace.  
Professor K assessed both children for allergies and sensitivities and provided a report to the court.  Professor K’s findings included that vaccination was not contraindicated in either child and she recommended a catch up schedule for vaccination for both children.  The Mother did not contest this evidence.
Evidence was presented by the Father that the children had been restricted in their activities as a result of not being immunised.  He provided the example of the PCYC policy that a child’s immunisation history must be provided to the service upon enrolment – such a policy would preclude the children participating in PCYC events.
Again, the judgement highlighted that the best interests of the child were paramount, and that the best interests principles and pathway was well established.  Judge Foster found that there was no evidence before it of any risk to the children in being vaccinated against otherwise preventable diseases by routine vaccinations, and made orders that the children be vaccinated.

Thus far Family Court decisions on the issue of vaccination have considered it in the best interests of children to be vaccinated against preventable diseases with traditional vaccinations.  Parents should therefore expect that future cases will result in orders for immunisation unless there is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk to a child from immunisation, and that evidence is before the court.
For other cases involving immunisation see:
Redden & Mains [2010] FMCAfam 1338 (9 December 2010)
Flynn & Jeffcott [2011] FMCAfam 1239 (25 November 2011)
This is general information only, and does not constitute specific legal advice. If you would like further information in relation to this matter or other legal matters please contact our office on Freecall 1800 609 945 or email us now.

100 years of Supporting West Australians

"My family law experience with Mary Roubos has restored my faith in solicitors in general. She not only demonstrated her legal expertise and flair, but also showed a compassionate and understanding nature during the lengthy process. I felt that Mary went above and beyond her obligations as my solicitor, and really listened to me. I would highly recommend Mary and her assistant Debra Wilson, who also demonstrated professionalism and excellence on all levels."

Renee Frangiosa

"Always fast and thorough service. Thank you"

Sitka Pil

"I found Ben most helpful and always prompt to let me know where things were at. Will definately use Ben again and will recommend to others."

Gerrit and Mary Van Bralal

"We wish to express our thanks for your help in attending to our mother/ wife's will - Mrs Grace Margaret Vessey. Aimee was extremely helpful and easy to deal with. We are greatful for your help with our affairs."

Ms Rosalyn Norman, Mr Stephen Vessey

"Thank you ever so much for all your hard work on my case Nicole, I really appreciate everything you did for me."

Workers Compensation Client

"Thank you for such great assistance with the transaction of Flying Domestics on behalf of Lorna Good. It has been such such a pleasure to work with the HHG Legal Group and I look forward to working with you in the future."

Jim Goodwin

"Simon Creek and his team were at all times empathic, professional and confident.  My matter needed to be addressed within a pressing time frame, and their availability at short notice and contact after hours was much appreciated.  It caused me considerable stress, but having such a thoroughly reliable and competent team to call on helped me to feel in control. Although I hope not to need their services again in future, I would be confident in doing so!"

Dr Lana Bell

"A good outcome is what we can expect.  A great outcome is a sign of a company which does the very best for their clients. A very big thank you to Daniel Morris for showing empathy towards my small and much needed legal action.

To HHG Legal Group, thank you for a great outcome.  I would recommend your company to anyone seeking legal services."

Jan Atkinson

"Your support this morning was amazingly kind, not to mention your totally reassuring competence, knowledge and wisdom that you used on my behalf.  It was extremely reassuring to have your knowledgeable support, and I particularly appreciated your real and obvious kindness to me. It means so much at a very difficult time. I'm so grateful to you."

Family Law Client

"I highly recommend the services of HHG Legal Group for both personal and business needs. HHG is very up to date with legal advice and are in tune with the evolution of business."

Robert Forgione

"Sue and myself would like to thank HHG for the way in which our dispute was resolved. It is good to know that people who do not have an understanding of the legal system can rely on people like yourself and the company you represent. Without the assistance of HHG we could not have resolved the problems we were facing, not only have we resolved the issue but the outcome was more favourable then we would have thought possible. Thank-you and please pass on our thanks to all those who worked behind the scenes to achieve this outcome."

Rick and Sue Ashton

"Janene was very professional and we established a good rapport quickly. The subject of death and wills can be quite confronting to deal with, however Janene's approach was soft and accommodating."

Lynette Livesey

"A big thank you to HHG for their professional service, continued support, and wide range of legal knowledge. Our clients have given us nothing but kind words regarding HHG Legal Group and so we have no hesitation in referring and recommending Simon Creek and HHG Legal Group for their outstanding services and legal expertise."

Nigel Plowman, Director at McKinley Plowman & Associates

"Simon is a friendly and practical legal advisor. I have received great feedback from the clients I have referred to him and his team at HHG Legal Group."

Richard Beal, Director at BDO

"Over the last few years, I have been impressed by Simon’s legal ability, management skills, entrepreneurial spirit, personal integrity and people skills. He appears to be that rare breed of lawyer – both knowledgeable and commercial."

Michael Malone, Founder of iiNet

"Our family has been a client of HHG Legal Group over many years and most recently in 2013 and February 2014.  Business has included drawing up of wills for three generations and preparing of probate for my father in law.

I would have no hesitation in recommending HHG Legal Group to anyone requiring such services."

Bernice Climie

"You should be congratulated for the manner in which your staff address clients and we found our dealings with your company, once again a very pleasant experience and we would like to truly thank you for your efforts."

Steve Harvey and Jane Powell

"HHG Legal were absolutely fantastic. Extremely responsive and brought calm to our chaotic family situation through their knowledge and caring attitude. Extremely professional from our very first contact with them and they expertly guided our family though the required legal process over almost a 12 month period."

Amanda Williamson

"Fantastic team! They really care about their client. Tim Colcutt is a 'go that extra mile' guy who gives his client his all. I can't recommend HHG and Tim enough."

Kerry Samson

"Anne Hurley has been such a valuable resource of information and advice, her wealth of knowledge is truly impressive and her ability to explain things in a way that makes them easily understood is very much appreciated. Anne and the wider HHG Legal Group are always a pleasure to work with."

Giorgia Parham

"I had a fantastic lawyer in Anne Hurley. She helped me out a great deal with good, sound advice in a friendly , professional manner. First class, thanks Anne"

Graeme Hammond

"Marine Plant Systems has been working with HHG Legal Group for a few years now and they continually provide first class service. Their professional advice has been invaluable to our company."

Carolin Grimm

"We were kept up to date at all times. Pricing was always updated over the time period so we remained "in budget". Personal access to someone whenever I had questions. All in all a great experience without too much fuss."

Rosslyn Tasker - COO AltusQ Pty Ltd

"Good service you can count on."

Miles Lee

"HHG Legal Group have provided outstanding support as I have taken the journey of buying a business, their professionalism is beyound reproach. Their assistance throughout the Due Diligernce process have been invaluable, I would fully recommend them."

Mark Armitage

"I have experienced how good the HHG Legal Group team are over the last 6 years and highly recommend them."

Lyn Hawkins

"Very friendly and efficient service - what a pleasure working with Anne."

Jacques Taylor

"I highly recommend Daniel from HHG Legal Mandurah. When dealing with a complicated legal property matter recently I was extremely impressed by Daniel's honesty and integrity and the legal advice I received. I am very happy with the service from HHG Legal."

Tony Walker