Female doctor placing adhesive bandage on little girl's arm after vaccination. Focus is on girl.

To Vaccinate or not to Vaccinate – What Does the Family Court Say?

Assisted by Madison Kelly

There is no doubt that regardless of the general sturdiness of a relationship, at one time or another all parents find themselves in disagreements with regard to the raising of their children.  Arguments over how to best raise children are often more prevalent in the case of separating or separated parents.  One particularly hot topic, and an increasingly common area of debate amongst parents is the issue of child vaccinations.

It’s quite likely that simply through being active on social media and paying attention to traditional news outlets, you will have already either read about or heard from the opposing sides of this ongoing debate – to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.

The most common argument put forward by those parents in the anti-vaccination camp is that vaccinations may have harmful or adverse side effects on children.  In opposition to this, pro-vaccination parents fear that their children are at risk of contracting illnesses or diseases (or be unable to attend child care or other activities) should they be in contact with unvaccinated children.

So, how does the Family Court address this contentious debate?  Ultimately, the Judge will make his or her determination following a review of the particular facts and circumstances unique to each individual case.  Nevertheless, past cases help in giving us some insight into both the relevant and potential considerations of the Court.

One relatively recent case throughout which the issue was discussed in length is that of Duke-Randall & Randall [2014] FamCA 126.  This particular case was focused on two young children who went unvaccinated due to the mother holding a staunch anti-vaccination position, and the father agreeing to her view “for the sake of peace in the household“.  In oral evidence, the father added that he was “simply unable to negotiate with the mother on this issue during cohabitation and still could not“.

Following the divorce of the children’s parents, the father grew increasingly concerned that his children were becoming notably disadvantaged due to the fact that they were not permitted to participate in certain extra-curricular activities (in this case, gymnastics classes).  This was due to the activities’ organisers being unwilling to allow unvaccinated children to take part in the club.  The father asserted that the health of the children would not be at risk should they be vaccinated.

Ultimately after hearing expert evidence, Justice Foster determined that it was in the best interest of the children to be vaccinated, and that the risks of harm would be outweighed by the benefits of vaccination.

According to Justice Foster “there is no evidence before the Court that these particular children would be adversely affected by being vaccinated“.  In turn it was noted that the children “will be able to attend gymnasiums that they were otherwise unable to attend due to their unimmunised status.  They will be able to receive recommended vaccinations in respect of travelling to overseas countries in the future and be protected from the risk of disease and infection.  They will be able to resume contact with extended paternal family members who were otherwise concerned about bringing members of their families into contact with unimmunised persons.”

Whilst the Family Courts have favoured the view that vaccination of children is in their best interest, the court is not restricted to this position.  For example, the court may consider the child’s allergies, the overall health of the child (e.g. low immune system) or even potential cultural concerns.


The Family Court is a discretionary jurisdiction (meaning there is no ‘black and white’ approach to parenting matters) and ultimately they will aim to protect the best interest of the children.

If you are experiencing any difficulties or disagreements regarding the immunisation of your children, please do not hesitate to contact one of our Accredited Family Law Specialists.


Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.


More posts

Can i put my home on Airbnb?

Airbnb is a form of short-term rental accommodation. To add your property to Airbnb in NSW, you are required to meet several laws and regulations governing short-term rentals.

When are liquidators required to seek approval to retain legal counsel?

When does a liquidator (or the company he or she is appointed to) need court, creditor, or committee approval to validly retain a solicitor to act in a liquidation matter which is likely to extend for longer than three months?  The answer to this question has only recently been settled.

Proposed changes to building and construction law in NSW

The Building Bill 2022 (the Bill) is the key avenue through which the NSW Government has proposed to reshape the culture of the building and construction industry by eliminating poor performance and improving the quality of building statewide.

Can you dismiss an employee who fails to return to the office?

Slowly but surely, most employers are requiring employees to return to the office for at least a portion of their working week. Some employers continue to struggle with employees resistant to returning to the office or those who have an expectation that they can continue to work from home whenever it suits them.

New powers to combat phoenixing in construction

The rise of phoenixing in the building and construction industry in Australia in recent years has proved a significant challenge to regulators. Mismanagement of time or cashflow can quickly propel businesses into insolvency.

The NSW Building Commission’s extraordinary powers

In late 2023, the NSW Government passed the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (Amendment Bill). The Amendment Bill established the NSW Building Commission and granted it extraordinary powers to enter construction sites, inspect work and take away information and materials.

© 2024 Coleman Greig Lawyers   |  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. ABN 73 125 176 230