Kingsford & Kingsford [2012] FamCA 889 (19 October 2012)

Last Updated: 27 November 2012

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REPRESENTATION

ORDERS

(1) The mother and the father forthwith do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the child T born ... August 2004 receives any and all childhood vaccinations/inoculations as are recommended by Dr J of the Royal Children’s Hospital so that the child is fully immunised to a level which is equivalent to a child of her age as prescribed or recommended in the current National Immunisation Program Schedule published by the Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing.

(2) Once the child’s level of immunisation has been brought up to date as provided in the preceding paragraph of this Order, the mother and the father do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the child continues to receive into the future such immunisations as are recommended within the National Immunisation Program, or its successor, for a child of her age with the exception of the Human Papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil) or like treatment for the prevention of cervical cancer.

(3) For the purpose of implementing the obligations of the parents which arise pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Order:-

• (a) The father do all acts and things necessary to obtain from Dr J his recommendation in writing for full immunisation program for the child T inclusive of catch up immunisations;
• (b) The father provide the mother and Dr O with a copy of the written recommendations of Dr J promptly upon receipt and then not proceed with the immunisations until 14 days have elapsed;
• (c) The mother be at liberty to verify Dr J’s recommendations with Dr J (at her own expense) and/or Dr O (at her own expense);
• (d) The father ensure that all immunisations be administered by Dr O or, in the event that he is unavailable, his appropriately qualified nominee;
• (e) The father provide to the mother with not less than 14 days notice in writing of the date and time of the child’s immunisation appointments which, for the avoidance of doubt, should fall within the face to face time which the child spends with the father pursuant to parenting orders or as has been agreed between the parents;
• (f) The father pay and be solely responsible for the reasonable cost of obtaining the recommendation from Dr J and the administration of the immunisations by Dr O or his nominee;
• (g) The dosages of vaccine and inoculations, including whether they be combined vaccinations, be as recommended by Dr J;
• (h) The mother do all acts and things necessary to:-
  • (i) deliver the child’s yellow/red booklet entitled “My Health and Development Record” to Dr O not less than 24 hours prior to any vaccination appointment (notified to her pursuant to sub-paragraph (e) hereof);
  • (ii) provide the father with a copy of the said booklet initially;
  • (iii) provide the father with a copy of further endorsements in the said booklet referrable to immunisations received from time to time.

(4) I DIRECT that the independent children’s lawyer provide a copy of this Order and my reasons for decision to:-

• (a) Doctor J;
• (b) Doctor O, and
• (c) such other medical or like health professional as she considers, in furtherance of the child’s best interests, ought to have that information –

and, for that purpose, the independent children’s lawyer be provided with three extra copies of this Order and my reasons for decision.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the mother is at liberty to provide a copy of my reasons for decision to Dr G.

(6) I reserve liberty to the parties to apply in relation to the implementation of this Order.

(7) I reserve liberty to the parties to apply in 2016 in relation to the child receiving the Human Papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil) or like treatment for the prevention of cervical cancer and for that purpose the matter may, if one of the parties so seek, be listed before me on its first return date for directions.

(8) Unless a Notice of Appeal is filed, upon compliance by the independent children’s lawyer with paragraph 4 of this Order, the order requesting the appointment of an independent children’s lawyer be, and is hereby, discharged.

(9) All exhibits and documents produced on subpoena be returned to the person tendering or producing same.

(10) All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Kingsford & Kingsford has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9459/09

Applicant

And

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for parenting orders in relation to the child T born in August 2004. She is eight years old. Her parents are separated, and, in accordance with orders made by consent before me on 8 September 2011, the child lives with her mother and spends time with her father during school terms on alternate weekends, for half of school holidays, and by telephone twice a week with arrangements for contact on birthdays, Christmas and other special occasions. The question of whether the child is to be immunised by way of homeopathic or traditional vaccination remains outstanding, and that is the issue before me today.
2. The mother’s position is in her amended response to the father’s initiating application filed 23 December 2011. The orders sought by the father were resolved by the parenting orders described above. By way of the outstanding matter, the mother seeks that the child be homeopathically immunised by her and that the father, his servants and agents, be restrained by injunction from otherwise immunising the child, or allowing anyone else to do so, without the express written permission of the mother.
3. The mother’s amended response followed an incident on 20 January 2010 when the father’s wife, Mrs E Kingsford, took the child to the N Medical Centre, where the child received traditional vaccinations for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, HIB, measles, mumps, rubella and meningococcal C. Prior to this incident, the child had been immunised according to the homeopathic regime of vaccination. The traditional vaccination of the child at the Medical Centre occurred without the mother’s prior knowledge or consent.

BACKGROUND

4. The father was born in Australia in 1954. The mother was born overseas in 1968.
5. In 2000 the parties met at a development course while the mother was travelling in Australia but still residing in the United Kingdom. The parties lived together briefly. In interview with the family consultant the father described this early romance as “rather rushed,” and the wife, in her affidavit filed 28 October 2009, described it as a “whirlwind.” The mother then returned to the United Kingdom and the parties continued to correspond. The father proposed to the mother over the phone in early 2001, and the parties were married in the United Kingdom in 2001.
6. In June 2001 the mother arrived in Australia to live permanently. Both parties described in interview with the family consultant that there were difficulties with the marriage from the outset. The father reported that the parties argued, that the mother was “unsettled, unable to finish courses and establish a career direction, neglectful of domestic duties and generally unmotivated” and that he felt controlled and oppressed. The mother reported that the father told her during their honeymoon that he viewed the marriage as a mistake and that this, combined with what she perceived as racism against her English heritage, made her adjustment to living in Australia very difficult. The parties separated on several occasions.
7. The mother then became pregnant. She reported to the family consultant that after she told the father of her pregnancy he said that he was thinking of leaving her, which led to the eventual demise of their relationship. The child T was born in August 2004.
8. In October 2004 the parties separated finally. At the time of the separation there was an informal arrangement for the father to spend time with the child, which arrangement was combined with his use of a business office in the family home. The father described his initial contact with the child to the family report writer as being “ad hoc and largely controlled by [the mother].” The mother described that the father was disinterested in the child, and thus that she had to drive the arrangements to foster the father-daughter relationship, going so far as to remain in Australia rather than returning to the UK so as to encourage that bond.
9. In 2005 the mother returned to France to see the maternal grandparents, who travelled back to Australia with the mother for an extended holiday. Around this time the father moved his office out of the family home and re-partnered with Mrs Kingsford, who had two sons from a previous relationship. The father described to the family report writer that the relationship between the father and mother deteriorated markedly after this.
10. It is fairly obvious that the parents had no previous experience of unity or harmony when they separated and the child was then only two months old. By the time that the father commenced to live with Mrs Kingsford and her boys, the child was one year old. Unfortunately, there was no positive adult relationship upon which the mother and father could graft a successful parenting relationship into the future. Each retreated from the other and, it appears to me, have continued to do so. The father now disavows the parenting styles to which he acquiesced prior to forming a new household with Mrs Kingsford. Having heard the evidence and seen the parents over a number of interlocutory hearings, including the interim hearings about choice of school, time spent and communication, I conclude that the child has been disadvantaged and has suffered as a result of her parents’ behaviours and rigid attitude of non-engagement. I will say a little more about this later but note, at this introductory point in my reasons, that whether the child is immunised by homeopathic or traditional method is not the most pressing issue relating to her wellbeing. The most disturbing aspect of this case is parental conflict.
11. On 16 April 2009 the parties divorced.
12. On 21 October 2009 the father filed his initiating application and affidavit in this court, and on 30 October 2009 Senior Registrar Fitzgibbon made orders, inter alia: that the child be enrolled at C School; that the matter be referred to the Child Responsive Program; and listing the matter for 11 December 2009 at 9.45am, on which date interim orders were made by consent for the father to spend time with the child.
13. In March 2010 M was born to the father and Mrs Kingsford. Prior to the birth, the father’s wife took the child T to the N Medical Centre on 20 January 2010 where the child was given traditional vaccinations for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, HIB, measles, mumps, rubella and meningococcal C. This occurred without the mother’s prior knowledge or consent. I am satisfied that the father knew beforehand and acquiesced to the event. He is unapologetic.
14. On 2 February 2011 the family report of Mr H was published.
15. On 29 June 2011 the report of Dr J was published, which report recommended that the child be traditionally immunised through a program of ‘catch-up’ vaccinations to bring her up to the standard level of vaccination for a child of her age.
16. On 16 August 2011, pursuant to orders of 12 July 2011, the parties attended a Roundtable Dispute Management Conference, and agreed on parenting arrangements for the child in all matters other than immunisation. Those arrangements were made into orders by consent by me on 8 September 2011.
17. On 5 January 2012 Dr G’s affidavit on homeopathic and traditional vaccination was filed by the mother, which report recommended generally that parents be free to choose either homoeoprophylaxis or traditional immunisation for their children.
18. The mother, according to her affidavit filed 20 December 2012, lives with the child in what she describes as a “simple and healthy way of life.” They eat organic and unprocessed foods when possible and use “non-toxic” cleaning and personal products. The mother’s evidence is:
    16. I currently work part time from home in a health and well-being industry, focussing on eliminating toxins from our homes and environment as well as educating people in food and nutritional support. In my line of work I recommend naturopaths, homeopathic doctors as well as integrative General Practitioners for people with specific health challenges or who want a professional opinion or consultation.
    17. As part of my work it is important that I attend regular health talks with naturopaths and other healthcare professionals to keep up to date with new research and health information. I attend seminars, workshops, listen to audio CD’s created by healthcare professionals, and read scientific and medical articles and books.
    18. [The child T] has been part of the Steiner Education from playgroup, kinder, prep and now school. Within the Steiner community the lifestyle imbues the way we live. The toys are made from natural products such as wood, wool, wax, silk etc. I believe most families who attend our school, as like us, will use natural and non-toxic products in the home and focus on building up the immune system of the child through homeopathics, as well as eating organic and biodynamic food. I believe from speaking with parents and teachers that a large number of children who attend some form of Steiner school are not vaccinated conventionally.
19. The father did not file affidavitory evidence on the issue to be decided. He relied on the evidence of Dr J, single expert witness. The father was cross-examined.
    
    

RELEVANT LAW – PARENTING ISSUES

20. These proceedings are brought under Part VII of the Act. Pursuant to s 60CA, in deciding to make any parenting order in relation to the child, I must regard the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration and that is how I approach these proceedings.
21. Subject to the best interests of the child being the paramount consideration,
    
    s 60B sets out the aims and principles of Part VII. The section provides the context within which the relevant best interests factors listed in s 60CC are to be examined and ultimately weighed.
22. In determining the best interests of a particular child, I am required to consider two primary considerations and several additional considerations, listed in
    
    s 60CC of the Act.
23. The primary considerations are set out in s 60CC(2) and are described as follows:-

(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and

(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

24. The additional considerations listed in s 60CC(3) of the Act are numerous but not exhaustive. S 60CC(3)(m) of the Act requires me to take into account ‘any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is relevant’. This ensures that the infinite variety of individual children’s circumstances can be addressed.[1] I will have regard to the primary and additional considerations, however this is a narrow issue.
25. In this case, under orders made by consent before me on 8 September 2011, the parties have already reached an agreed resolution to the majority of the parenting issues, including that each has equal shared parental responsibility, and the child live with her mother and spend time with her father. It is not necessary for me to revisit the appropriateness or otherwise of the shared care or substantial time in light of the arrangements to which the parties recently consented and which they agree continue to be appropriate.

THE EVIDENCE

26. As suggested by the Mr H in his report on the family, it appears that the question of the immunisation of the child has, for these parents and the father’s new wife, transformed from a question about the health of their daughter (or, in the case of the father’s new wife, her step-daughter) into a forum for the more fundamental parental conflict. Mr H wrote:

45. This issue more than any other illustrates the struggle between the parties for initiative and control over the arrangements and philosophical guidelines of [the child T’s] life. Given that [Mrs Kingsford] has responsibility for the day to day running of her families [sic] domestic life it is likely that [the child] will become increasingly triangulated between the different parenting philosophies of these two strong willed women. The prognosis for [the child’s] ongoing psychological and emotional health is poor if the parties fail to reach a rapprochement and come to terms with the need for a more cooperative and authentic approach to the joint parenting of [the child].

27. Mr H’s observations and conclusion accord with my own. The parents have not reached a rapprochement and nor have they come to terms with the need for a more cooperative and authentic approach to the joint parenting of the child. That the question of the immunisation method for the child has become the site for broader parental conflict was evident in the evidence of both parents, both on affidavit and in the witness box.
28. In relation to immunisation, Mr H opined:
    43. As stated, the writer was keen to facilitate a meeting between [the mother] and [the father’s new wife] to explore the issues of communication and immunization but this did not occur. The views of the parties are unchanged on this issue. Each party wishes to continue on with their respective immunization program. The writer does not have the medical expertise to comment on this issue and there are fundamental ideological differences between the parties. The result being that [the child] remains only partly immunized by both programs.
    44. The writer respectfully recommends an Order for the parties to seek the opinion of a specialist Paediatrician and for the parties to abide by the opinion of the specialist. The specialist should address the efficacy or otherwise of the two approaches and the implications for [the child] of continuing or discontinuing either approach.

The Mother

29. The mother presented as a genuine witness who gave truthful and considered answers. She appeared not to have much comprehension that her case may not succeed and obviously had given little or no consideration to the conditions in which an order for traditional immunisation could be implemented.
30. In the mother’s affidavit, she sets out her position that the child should not be traditionally vaccinated, and should continue to receive homoeopathic immunisations:
    12. The homoeoprophylaxis is administered from birth to 84 months. [The child] has only two further vaccinations required to complete the entire regime.
    13. I do not see that there is any point in exposing [the child] to risk by now making her receive the more conventional vaccinations. I say that the homoeoprophylaxis regime is more than adequate for her needs, provides her with immunity against childhood diseases, and does so in a far safer and more risk adverse way.
31. Despite maintaining that the child should be homoeopathically immunised, the mother, in her oral evidence, responded to some questions about what she would seek in the event that I order, contrary to her wishes, that the child receive conventional immunisations.
32. The mother’s position was that she would like to be the one who takes the child to her immunisation appointments. When I asked the mother what she would say to the child in relation to traditional immunisation, she struggled to respond, restating her commitment to homeopathic immunisation. She then suggested that she might tell the child that she could now have the traditional immunisations because the was “big girl” and was “strong enough” for them. Finally the mother suggested that she would have to say that the immunisations were “good for her,” and that she was “brave enough” to have them now.
33. The mother also deposed that she would like to be the one to take the child to the appointments so that she could monitor the child’s health before and after the vaccinations. However, my impression is that the mother will be unable to convey to the child that the immunisations are of benefit to her. My impression is that the mother will be unable to conceal from the child her genuine belief that traditional immunisation is harmful and, having regard to her belief in the homeopathic alternative, unnecessary.
34. The mother conceded that it would probably not make a difference to the child for the mother be the one to take her to the appointments, but that it would make the mother feel better about the process if it is she who attends. I accept that is so. The mother is the child’s primary carer whose emotional wellbeing impacts directly on the child so I take into account the mother’s preference to accompany the child to the appointments. However, on balance, I think that it is best for the father or his wife to attend any immunisations because they, more than the mother, will treat it as routine and ordinary.
35. The mother’s position was also that she would like that Dr O administer any traditional vaccinations to the child. The mother’s evidence was that she and the child have a good relationship with Dr O. Dr O is an anthroposophical doctor:

19. Our family doctor ([Dr O]) is an anthroposophical doctor and General Practitioner. Anthroposophical medicine is based upon the anthroposophic medical indications proposed in Swizerland by Dr Rudolf Steiner (PhD 1861-1925) and developed by Dr Ita Wegman (Dutch Physical 1876-1943). Anthroposophical medicine is a complementary approach to medicine that integrates modern medicine with homeopathic medicine. It is a holistic approach that supports health by strengthening physiology and individuality, rather than solely addressing factors that cause disease. Conventional treatments such as surgery and medications are still used as necessary.

36. The mother also stressed that, if the child is ordered to be traditionally immunised, she would like that the child receive each vaccination independently, if possible, rather than in combination. The mother’s evidence was that this would reduce the “toxins” to which the child would be exposed. The mother clarified that by “toxins” she was referring not to the active ingredients of the vaccination but rather to the preservative additions. When, however, the mother saw the National Immunisation Program Schedule for 2007 produced by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aging, she appeared to reconsider her position in light of the number of vaccinations required, she wavered and said that she would like to consider whether it may be better for the child to receive combined vaccinations to reduce the number of injections which are necessary. However, the mother reserved her final decision by saying that she would need to make that assessment after seeing the revised schedule of catch-up vaccinations prepared for the child.
37. The mother also deposed that her preference was that the child have a blood test to see which diseases she is already immune to, as this may potentially reduce the number of vaccinations required, despite that this may mean that the child may have to have more needles overall.
38. The mother maintained that she had never discussed the issue of immunisation with the child and that, in her opinion, the child was likely to be unaware that it was a source of parental conflict. I accept that the mother gave evidence honestly on this point but do not accept that it is accurate. In my view, the mother gives insufficient weight to the fact that the child is exposed to views and attitudes from two households as well as from school friends and the parents of school friends who, on the mother’s evidence, have views on homeopathic immunisation which accord with her own.
39. The mother expressed concern about the secret immunisation of the child, both in terms of her personal feelings of disempowerment in relation to the incident, but also in terms of potential negative health consequences for the child as a result of having an unknown vaccination status, risking, for example, accidental double vaccination. The mother further expressed some concern that, after her first set of traditional vaccinations, the child appeared to have a bit of a runny nose, a cold and mood swings, but the mother’s evidence was that she could not definitively link that to the vaccination. As I indicated above, I am satisfied that the mother’s views are genuinely held. I deal later with the evidence of the experts.
40. In relation to psychological distress as a result of the first set of vaccinations, the mother’s evidence was that the child had said that it hurt and that she didn’t want the stepmother to take her to have needles again, but the mother conceded that the child did not cry when reporting the incident to her and that there were no further discussions about it.
41. The mother denied allegations that she was “hypochondriac” in regards to the child’s health.
42. Like the father through his new wife, it appears that the mother has done a great deal of independent research on the question of traditional versus homoeopathic immunisation, in the mother’s case, through the internet, books and talking to other supporters of homeopathic immunisation.
43. Although the mother’s evidence is that she believes that she may have been traditionally immunised, that she has taken antibiotics, that she has previously been a smoker, and that she administers Ventolin to the child and has given her antibiotics, the mother maintains that she opposes traditional immunisation for the child because it would expose her to harmful ‘toxins.’ The mother said that she did not see any inconsistency between her objection to the toxins in vaccinations and her willingness to give the child other traditional medicines such as antibiotics or Ventolin.
44. In relation to the child’s diagnosed infection with whooping cough when she was in kinder, the mother’s evidence was that it had not shaken her confidence in HP immunisation, but that she appreciated that both homoeopathic and traditional immunisation are not 100 per cent effective and noted that, for example, Mrs Kingsford’s sons had been traditionally immunised against chickenpox but had still contracted that illness.

The Father

45. The father was not a good witness. He acknowledged that he had some difficulty with numbers, and appeared to struggle to read dates and recall when events occurred. The father’s difficulties in giving evidence extended to the point that he was unable to remember important details of his own life with his daughter, for example, the time which he had spent with her prior to the current more restrictive arrangements which he sought and consented to on 8 September 2011. The father’s evidence was also often delivered in the first person plural, “us”, which appeared to refer to the father and his new wife as a having a single unified position in the dispute. Like the mother, the father seemed to have done significant personal research into the issue of vaccination, and at times became distracted from the question of what was in the best interests of his daughter, focusing instead on the broader debate and health statistics, which was a matter better left to the expert witnesses.
46. I am satisfied on the father’s evidence that the father abrogated parenting decisions to the mother until he commenced to cohabit with Mrs E Kingsford whereupon he adopted the stepmother’s views on parenting as his own. He staunchly supports the stepmother’s opinions but appeared to me to have very few of his own.
47. In relation to the incident on 20 January 2010, the father agreed that he had authorised his wife to take the child to receive traditional vaccinations without the consent of her mother. The father’s position was that he had hoped to continue to secretively vaccinate the child throughout her childhood and had hoped her mother would never find out. The father said that he had believed that the mother would become very upset if she discovered that the child had been traditionally immunised and so he had decided that it would be non productive for the mother to be told.
48. Although, at the time that the father unilaterally arranged for the child to receive immunisation injections, he was already before the court in relation to parenting issues for the child, and had, one month prior, had legal representation, he did not bring an application for her to be traditionally vaccinated. The father’s evidence was that he failed to do so because he felt that a formal application and hearing would be too time consuming and too expensive. He was concerned that his unborn child M might “die” in the interim. The implication was that death would be as a consequence of the unborn child contracting a disease from the child T in respect of which an immunisation could have been given and was, therefore, avoidable.
49. The father alleged that the mother was a hypochondriac with respect to the child’s health, and that she was inconsistent in relation to “toxins” and was happy for the child to be exposed to all sorts of foreign material, but drawing the line at immunisation.
50. The father also expressed concern that the child was not properly educated and could not read or write.
51. The father’s evidence was that the child had, despite being homeopathically immunised, previously contracted whooping-cough. The father oscillated on the question of whether the child’s whooping cough was linked to a bad cough that he had twelve months later, and it is of note that the father had been traditionally immunised against whooping cough.
52. The father’s position was that he had the child conventionally immunised because: she was starting school and thought that it would be required; her non immunised status could have exposed his unborn daughter M to potential dangerous infections during her infancy prior to her vaccination; and that immunisation might stop the child T dying of an infectious disease. The father agreed that the risk to the child of contracting a fatal infectious disease in Australia was low, but his opinion was that it was not zero, and he did not want to “play Russian roulette” with her health.
53. The father’s evidence was that he did not consult with a doctor about immunisation for the child prior to her being immunised, although it is clear from his evidence that he has done significant subsequent research.
54. The father’s evidence was that if the child had not been immunised, his wife may have prohibited the child from spending time with her half-sister M as a baby. However he conceded that as M and the other children in his household have now been immunised, this would be unlikely to still be an issue.
55. The father’s position was that he felt that it had been in the child’s best interests to be immunised by stealth because “the end justifies the means.”
    
    

Doctor O

56. Doctor O was not required to give evidence in person, however the Independent Children’s Lawyer informed the court that Dr O said he would abide any order of the Court for traditional immunisation if requested by the parents to do so. There was no issue raised by either parent and I accept the statement of the Independent Children’s Lawyer. I consider that Dr O is eligible to conduct a program of traditional immunisation for the child.

Doctor J

57. Doctor J has a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from Melbourne University and is a Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Physicians. He was an impressive witness. He balanced considerable knowledge with considerable compassion for the mother’s position and beliefs. He was respectful of Dr G but did not share his views.
58. At the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne Dr J is a principal specialist, a consultant in the Emergency Department and a senior paediatrician in the Child Behaviour Clinic. He has been in specialist paediatric practice for over twenty years, and is in private practice as a consultant paediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital and two other medical centres.
59. Dr J prepared a report dated 29 June 2011 in relation to traditional immunisation and homeopathic immunisation for the child T. It was Dr J’s recommendation in that report that the child be immunised traditionally and that she undertake a program of ‘catch-up’ immunisation to bring her up to the standard level of traditional immunisation for a child of her age.
60. In reaching this conclusion, Dr J considered both the history of the family and also research into homeopathic as compared to traditional immunisation.
61. Dr J noted that, despite the child having followed a program of homeopathic immunisation, whereby she received a total of twenty-eight separate homeopathic remedies to protect her from serious infectious disease, she was diagnosed with whooping cough (pertussis) at the age of five, which diagnosis was confirmed with formal testing.
62. By way of context, Dr J also described accurately that the father and his current partner, on becoming concerned that the child was not protected from preventable diseases and that she was also placing their new baby at risk, had taken the child to a general practitioner who had commenced the traditional program of vaccination for her by way of a series of injections and oral treatments. Dr J acknowledged that this was done without the mother’s knowledge or consent. Dr J also noted the mother’s claim that she is not averse to using traditional western medicine to treat the child and had, for example, administered Ventolin when the child had asthma. Dr J stated that the mother’s assessment was that the child has been healthy throughout her life with minimal illness.
63. Dr J assessed the child as being of average height and weight for her age and presenting as developmentally normal.
64. Considering the “relative merits of homeopathic prevention versus traditional medical vaccination” Dr J stated that he had discussed the child’s situation with Dr R, an immunisation specialist from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, and that he had also consulted a fact sheet on homeopathy and vaccination provided by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) dated December 2009 and information provided by the mother on homeopathic prophylaxis (also known as homoeoprophylaxis or HP) authored by homeopath Dr G.
65. Dr J posed the key question to which his expertise should be directed is: “whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to indicate that homeopathic prophylaxis or HP actually works.” I agree.
66. Dr J described that Dr G had referred to two studies from Brazil and Cuba which indicated that HP was effective in preventing Meningococcal Meningitis and Leptospirosis. Dr J stated that only one of those diseases, Meningococcal Meningitis, is part of the mainstream immunisation program, and that even if it is accepted that HP is effective in preventing Meningococcal Meningitis, there is no evidence to Dr J’s knowledge that HP is effective in preventing any of the other vaccine preventable diseases covered by the traditional immunisation program. Dr J noted that this is also the position of NCIRS.
67. Dr J further stated that the NCIRS fact sheet, the British Homeopathic Association and the National Register of Homeopaths recommend that people should receive conventional vaccinations and that homeopathic preparations should not be recommended as a substitute for conventional immunisation.
68. While acknowledging that traditional immunisations do not guarantee protection against vaccine preventable illnesses, Dr J stated that:

incontrovertible evidence from numerous scientific studies attests to the safety and effectiveness of our current traditional vaccination program.

69. Dr J concluded that although he was “sympathetic” to the mother’s position, he hoped that she could view his recommendation in the light that both the British Homeopathic Association and the Australian Register of Homeopaths “see traditional immunisation as complementary to homeopathic treatments.”
70. Dr J recommended that, as suggested by immunisation specialist Dr R, the child should be given the four month, six month, 18 month and four year vaccination protocols at two monthly intervals until she has caught up completely with the standard level of immunisation for a child of her age, even though she has confirmed the natural pertussis infection. Dr J stated that it would “seem to be inappropriate” to leave her only partially protected by traditional immunisations.
71. Dr J also gave oral evidence on 28 March 2012, responding to the oral evidence of Mr G for whose oral evidence and cross examination he was present in court to hear.
72. In his oral evidence, Dr J maintained his recommendation in his published report that the child be traditionally vaccinated, however he noted the need to change the schedule of vaccinations as the child is now almost a year older than at the date of his report.
73. Considering the risk-benefit ratio of traditional vaccination, Dr J stressed that the risks of vaccination are outweighed by the risks of natural infection with the diseases vaccinated against. He stated that, for example, two out of 1000 children with measles have inflammation of the brain, which can lead to seizures, brain damage or death. He noted that measles vaccination can also cause severe reactions and brain inflammation, however that this occurs in less than one in a million cases. Dr J’s evidence was that vaccination is one of the most significant advances in children’s health in the last hundred years.
74. Dr J was at pains to stress that he did not philosophically or morally oppose homeopathic medicine and homoeoprophylaxis. His argument was that there is insufficient evidence as to the effectiveness of HP to justify its use as a replacement for traditional vaccination at the current time.
75. Dr J suggested that the Cuban study of HP vaccination against leptospirosis, referred to and relied upon by Dr G, represented one of the weakest types of scientific analysis, and that while HP vaccination may have been associated with the drop in rates of infection in that study, causality had not been demonstrated. He also noted that in his twenty years of medical practice he had never personally encountered a case of leptospirosis. There were no inroads into this evidence in cross examination of Dr J by counsel for the mother.
76. In relation to Dr G’s evidence as to the risks of traditional vaccination, Dr J said that he was not aware of any link between traditional vaccination and allergies. He conceded that there was a hypothetical risk that introduction of foreign proteins in vaccinations early in life may increase the risk of later allergic reactions to those proteins, but also gave evidence of a new school of thought emerging which suggests that introducing foreign proteins early in life in fact guards against later allergies. In relation to a link between traditional vaccination and epilepsy, Dr J conceded that vaccines may lead to encephalitis as a result of fever and febrile convulsions in one in a million cases, but he stressed that the risk of encephalitis from fever was far greater as a result of natural infection. In relation to Dr G’s suggestion that traditional vaccination is linked to ADHD, Dr J stated that ADHD was a particular area of interest of his, that ADHD has many causes and he was not aware of a causative link between vaccination and ADHD in post vaccination surveillance studies. In relation to an alleged link between traditional vaccination and autism, Dr J’s evidence was that that debate was over, and that large Scandinavian studies, as well as studies in France and the United States, had disproved any potential link.
77. Dr J’s evidence was that: post initiation vaccine surveillance; the widespread use of vaccination on millions of children; and published articles in peer reviewed scientific journals; suggested to him that traditional vaccination is relatively safe. I accept that evidence as correct.
78. Dr J gave evidence that vaccination would not only be to the child’s immediate benefit, but that immunisation serves a public policy of helping to eliminate diseases in the wider community. Dr J said that if immunisation levels in the community drop too low, then diseases may survive in unimmunised members of the population, whereas high levels of immunisation can lead to “herd immunity” and the eradication of disease. I do not give public policy considerations any significant weight in this case but have regard to it in the context of how reasonable the views of the father and the stepmother are.
79. In relation to the child specifically, Dr J suggested that there was a possibility that she may not need all traditional vaccinations. He said that it was possible that the child may be immune to whooping cough as a result of her previous diagnosed infection with that illness, and moreover that she may be immune to other infectious diseases as a result of natural exposure. He also stated that the risks of infectious diseases are higher for infants than for children of the child’s age. Dr J’s evidence was that immunisation specialist Dr R had suggested that traditional immunisation for whooping cough is nevertheless desirable for the child, as it may improve the child’s protection from the disease. He also agreed that it may cover strains different from the strain which infected the child. Dr J suggested that a blood test could be used to assess the child’s immunity, and she could then be immunised only against those diseases to which she was not already immune. When asked, however, Dr J’s evidence was that some vaccinations are difficult or impossible to obtain individually, and come combined with other vaccinations. This may make selecting specific vaccinations for the child more difficult. Dr J estimated that the child may need approximately six injections to ‘bring her up to speed’ or words to that effect.
80. Dr J stated that traditional vaccinations for the child would be available free of charge at the Royal Children’s Hospital and that the parents could turn up without an appointment and have her vaccinated. His evidence was that a general practitioner may also be able to vaccinate the child, but that this may cause the parents expense, may involve making appointments, the general practitioner would have to adhere to a schedule of vaccination for the child that is different from the usual schedule (as the child is commencing vaccination at a late age) and the vaccines would need to be properly stored and fresh.
81. Regarding the preservatives and additives in traditional vaccines, Dr J’s evidence was that there are some limited alternatives and different brands, but that he wasn’t sure of the exact additives of the vaccines save that no vaccine currently on the market contains heavy metals.
82. In relation to vaccination for polio, Dr J agreed that the child’s personal risk of contracting that disease was extremely low, but that continued immunisation of the population is important to prevent a resurgence of the disease.
83. Dr J suggested that, of the vaccinations available, chicken pox may be one of the less critical vaccinations, but tempered this recommendation by noting that chicken pox may be the most serious illness that many children suffer, and he agreed moreover that vaccination can also help to prevent shingles later in life.
84. When questioned about the HPV vaccination, Dr J agreed that, given its relative newness, it is difficult to know for certain how safe that vaccination is. He stressed however that the vaccination guards against serious consequences (cervical cancer being a major killer of middle aged women). Ultimately he agreed that the decision to vaccinate the child against HPV did not have to be made now.
85. Dr J’s evidence was that the child’s risk of infection may be reduced by living in a household of other people who have been vaccinated, as they would be less likely to transmit infection to her, but that the father’s two year old child would not have yet finished her immunisation schedule and thus having the child T, unimmunised, in the same household would place that infant at risk of infectious diseases.
86. Dr J’s evidence was that he does not believe that HP immunisation does any harm, and that most doctors do not object to it as parallel immunisation, but that he would oppose using HP vaccination in place of traditional immunisation.
87. I accept Dr J’s evidence.

Doctor G

88. Doctor G is not a medical doctor. He has an Honours degree in Economics and had a career in financial services prior to becoming a homeopathic practitioner in 1984.
89. In 2004 he graduated from a PhD program to research homoeoprophylaxis (HP).
90. Since 1992 Doctor G has held very senior positions in the field of homeopathy, received recognition in the form of an award, and been a leader in homeopathic education. Dr G has also authored a number of books on homeopathy.
91. Dr G specialises in treating patients suffering chronic disease using “constitutional and anti miasmic homeopathic treatment,” and describes himself as an international expert on homeoprophylaxis. He advised that when clients come to him regarding vaccination for their children, he discusses options with them, including the option of traditional vaccination. He said that he then details the risks and effectiveness of HP and traditional vaccination, namely that in his opinion HP is safe and effective, and that traditional vaccination is reasonably effective but has both short and long term risks.
92. Dr G filed an affidavit on 5 January 2012, and also gave oral evidence on 28 March 2012. He presented as a somewhat defensive but nevertheless confident witness who tended to frame his evidence using medical or homeopathic terminology and with a high level of detail, which detail often was either only tangentially relevant or lacked background context. This, at times, gave the impression that Dr G’s focus was on the appearance of authoritativeness at the expense of clarity, or perhaps even by way of that lack of clarity.
93. In his oral evidence, Dr G clarified that, in Australia, homeopathy is not a registered profession and any person can call himself or herself a ‘homeopath.’ To be on the register of homeopaths, however, one has to undergo a course of appropriate study. Dr G’s evidence was that, as well as his PhD, he also has three diplomas in homeopathy.
94. In his affidavit filed 5 January 2012, Dr G agreed generally with Dr J that there are some infectious diseases that should be protected against, however he disagreed with Dr J’s recommendation that the child be protected by traditional vaccination, and also argued that the child should not be vaccinated against pertussis (either traditionally or with HP) as the child had already acquired the disease and that is “the most effective form of natural immunisation.”
95. In his affidavit, Dr G agreed with Dr J that the “critical question” is whether there is scientific evidence that HP actually works. Dr G argued that HP is effective in preventing a number of diseases. To substantiate his position Dr G stated in his affidavit that:
    1. his research “determined individual rates” for whooping cough, measles and mumps;
    2. “the program researched” also covered tetanus, polio, rubella, Hib and diphtheria and “there were no cases of infection recorded”;
    3. his current data collection includes Pneumococcal disease and Meningococcal disease (Dr G did not state any outcomes of that data collection);
    4. “over 2.2 million people were homeophathically immunised” against Leptospirosis in a Cuban study, and “Cuban research has also collected data on Swine flu” which research showed that “over 9.8 million people were homeopathically immunised” against it.
96. Further in relation to the effectiveness of HP, Dr G listed (in both his oral evidence and affidavit) four sources of evidence as to its efficacy which he said that he discussed with his clients:
    1. over 200 years of clinical evidence (although he did not detail what was the substance of that evidence);
    2. consistent evidence in short-term epidemic conditions showing effectiveness of around 90 per cent (Dr G referred, in his affidavit, to one study of children vaccinated against meningococcal meningitis);
    3. evidence showing the effectiveness of long-term HP at 90.4 per cent (Dr G, in his affidavit, directed the reader to a book which he personally authored);
    4. HP interventions involving 2.2 million people against leptospirosis and 9.8 million people against swine flu (also noted in his affidavit with reference to a book of his own authorship).
97. Dr G described in great detail in his oral evidence the Cuban trials into HP for leptospirosis, a water born bacterial disease which is endemic in Cuba. Dr G agreed that the diseases which the child T would be vaccinated against in Australia are diseases which are not endemic in our community and indeed that some are diseases that are very rarely found in Melbourne, Australia. He also agreed with counsel for the independent children’s lawyer that leptospirosis is a disease that it not well understood.
98. Dr G stated in his affidavit that:

...we find that because HP works on consistent natural principles which do not change and do not rely on strain-specific versions of antigens (as do vaccines), that once the method is established as being effective for one or more diseases then it applies to all diseases, as is demonstrated by the consistency of results across all researchers and conditions of around 90% effectiveness.

99. Dr G noted that this concept is “very different” to traditional medical principles, such as Dr J may be used to, but that it is fundamental to natural medicine and homeopathy. This does not appear to me to be an attempt to use “scientific evidence” to support the use of homeopathy, but rather, Dr G is justifying the use of homeopathic immunisation using principles which are “fundamental in natural medicine and homeopathy in particular” and which are, on his own evidence, foreign to traditional medical science.
100. Dr G concluded in his affidavit that there is “sufficient rigorous evidence to show that HP is comparably effective to vaccination.” When it was put to Dr G by counsel for the independent children’s lawyer that the board which registers Australian homeopaths acknowledges that there has not been sufficient scientific investigation of homeopathic prophylaxis and therefore supports further controlled ethical research into its use, Dr G responded that while he supports further research, he does believe that there has been sufficient investigation of HP to demonstrate its effectiveness.
101. Turning to the comparative efficacy of traditional vaccinations, Dr G, in his affidavit, acknowledged that “orthodox publications” list a vaccine effectiveness of between 75 per cent and 95 per cent. Dr G then stated that in a book which was authored by Dr G himself, it was found that “real-world effectiveness in wild outbreaks ... can be much lower.” Dr G also stated that “no efficacy trials exist” for certain vaccines such as Hepatitis B for newborn infants.
102. Considering the risks, Dr G’s evidence was that there are short and long term risks of traditional vaccination. Dr G stated that the short term risks of traditional vaccination are rare, but include brain damage and death, and that when Japan increased the minimum age of vaccination from three to 24 months there was a drop in compensation claims for harm as a result of vaccination. I suggested that this may simply have been due to the twenty-one month lag in which children were not being vaccinated, and thus an overall drop in vaccinations. In relation to the long term risks, Dr G said, both in his affidavit and his oral evidence, that, as there has been no study in an orthodox medical journal, to his knowledge, which looked at totally vaccinated and totally unvaccinated children in an age appropriate way, and taking into account the “complete health” of the children (including intellectual, emotional and physical factors), it cannot be scientifically said that vaccination is completely safe in the long term. Dr G also did not point to any such long-term trials considering the “full health” of children who received homeopathic vaccinations in order to demonstrate the safety of HP. Dr J, in his evidence, noted that the most authoritative scientific study would be to immunise half the population and then monitor both the immunised and non immunised groups over an extended period, however that such a study would not be possible because, given the effectiveness of traditional immunisation, it would not be ethical to withhold traditional vaccinations from half the population.
103. Dr G further cited studies which he alleged indicate the long term risks of vaccination: a study by French physician Michel Odent whose research on the effects of breast feeding also revealed, according to Dr G, an increase in rates of asthma in children vaccinated against whooping cough; Dr G’s own study conducted for his PhD in which he looked at fully vaccinated, HP vaccinated, unvaccinated, and ‘constitutionally protected’ (through the promotion of general health to protect from infectious diseases) children and found higher rates of allergies in traditionally vaccinated children (although it is, in my opinion, of note that Dr G only accepted as suffering allergies those children who were diagnosed by an orthodox GP, and in my mind there is some doubt as to whether parents who do not vaccinate their children, or who vaccinate them homeopathically, would be likely to take their child to a traditional GP for allergy diagnosis. I suggest they may be more likely to self treat, or to attend on a homeopathic practitioner, which would mean that their allergies were not accounted for in Dr G’s study); and a comparison of about 10,0000 children which revealed higher levels of asthma, eczema, ear hearing conditions, hay fever and sinusitis in vaccinated as opposed to unvaccinated children.
104. Regarding the safety of homeopathic immunisation, Dr J, in his affidavit, wrote that unlike “potentially toxic” traditional immunisation, homeopathic immunisation:

...is not potentially toxic due to the method of remedy preparation which removes any potentially toxic materials (noting that many promoters of pharmaceutical medicine say HP cannot work because “nothing is there” – so “nothing” obviously cannot be toxic)

105. This statement does not clarify how potentially toxic materials are identified and eliminated from homeopathic remedies but not from traditional remedies, except for suggesting that there is no toxicity to homeopathic remedies because “nothing is there” which statement seems to rely on circular logic, as if HP remedies do contain “nothing” then their efficacy is indeed called into question. If on the other hand they do contain “something” then there is a possibility that that “something” may be toxic, and it is not made clear how this potential toxicity is safeguarded against or removed.
106. Dr G further stated that there “is no disagreement that [HP] is less potentially toxic both in the short term and the long term” than traditional vaccination. This statement flies in the face of Dr J’s evidence that “numerous scientific studies attests to the safety and effectiveness of our current traditional vaccination program,” and also to the evidence in the appendix to Dr J’s report, Homeopathy and Vaccination in which it is explicitly stated that “the safety and effectiveness of homeopathic preparations ...is unknown,” and further, under the heading Which is safer, homoeopathic preparations or conventional medicine for immunising my child?:

Conventional medicines such as vaccines are thoroughly scrutinised, tested, evaluated and followed up for their safety and effectiveness. Homeopathic preparations do not undergo the same level of attention. Many homeopathic preparations have not been subjected to testing or approval through government regulatory bodies, such as the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration or the United States Food and Drug Administration, which is standard practice for conventional vaccines.

107. Dr G acknowledged in his affidavit that both the British Homeopathic Association and Australian Register of Homeopaths state that they support vaccination in the absence of medical contraindications. He noted also that the British Faculty state that HP is of value if there are medical contraindications. Dr G went on to state that, as discussed in one of his books, there was “some history of pressure put on the Association by vaccine supporters,” seeming to suggest that the British Homeopathic Association does not in fact condone traditional vaccination despite its public statements to that effect. In his oral evidence Dr G further described that the British Homeopathic Association had made a statement in apparent support of traditional vaccination because they were put under pressure from the British Medical Faculty, which was withdrawing certain medications unless statements were made supporting vaccination. Dr G explained that he had found out about this through his lawyer, who approached the British Medical Faculty to gain information for Dr G in relation to a defamation suit which he brought against Channel 9.
108. Dr G then went on to state in his affidavit that:

either way it is clear that many homeopaths would regard the practice of injecting toxic materials into healthy infants as being “medically contraindicated”, and thus the statements are heavily qualified.

109. Dr G reiterated this point in his oral evidence. By this statement it appears that Dr G is implying that:
     • Traditional vaccinations involve injecting toxic materials into healthy infants
     • Most traditional vaccinations on healthy infants are thus ‘medically contraindicated’
     • The British Homeopathic Association and Australian Register of Homeopaths would thus not support the majority of traditional vaccinations.
110. This conclusion contradicts the clear meaning of the position articulated by the British Homeopathic Association and the Australian Register of Homeopaths, which position is the support of traditional immunisation in all cases except those, impliedly exceptional cases, which are medically contraindicated. If vaccination in the traditional way was considered to be medically contraindicated because of the very contents and method of delivery of such vaccination, then there could be no case where traditional vaccination is not contraindicated. In my opinion this interpretation would require me to torture the language and is, frankly, duplicitous. Dr G also suggested in his oral evidence that this is an instance of homeopaths not wishing to seem to be rabid anti-vaccinists. It seems to me that the position of the British Homeopathic Association and Australian Register of Homeopaths goes further than that, and is in fact a statement in explicit support traditional vaccination.
111. Dr G concluded in his affidavit that there are “minor potential benefits” benefits to the child T of conventional vaccination but that the potential risks were “potentially significant” and that it “is unnecessary to take any risks when the potential benefit is so marginal.” Dr G thus recommended in his affidavit that:

parents should be free to choose either vaccination or HP as they prefer based on factual advice from both experienced orthodox and homeopathic practitioners

which recommendation is of some limited use in this case where the parents fundamentally disagree on which form of immunisation to use for the child T.

112. In his oral evidence Dr G also referred to his research and work in treating children who are “vaccine damaged,” that is, harmed by traditional vaccination. Dr G argued that the success of his homeopathic preparations of traditional vaccines in treating the children demonstrated that the cause of the illness had to have been the initial vaccination. When asked whether such procedures could be used for the child subsequent to her being traditionally vaccinated, Dr G said that in some cases vaccine damage is not reversible, and that for a child not presenting with any symptoms, constitutional treatment (whereby the “constitutional type” of the child is identified and remedies are provided to improve their “vitality”) would be preferable. Dr G also suggested that high doses of vitamin C prior to and following the injections may reduce the risk of “toxic shock” to the child.
113. Dr G also raised in his oral evidence that his own child had been vaccine damaged. When I asked Dr G about this, he referred to the time when he was still “a nice little accountant” living interstate, and that his “perfectly healthy” daughter had become progressively ill (weight loss, constipation, listlessness) after a series of three vaccinations commencing at four or five months of age. He described that she developed a bowel obstruction after the third injection, which medical doctors at a Hospital refused to relieve, and so he was forced to relieve the obstruction himself. Dr G said that shortly after that he moved to Queensland and had to leave his daughter with a friend for treatment. He said that it took two years for his daughter to regain weight and vitality and that this was very distressing. Dr G’s evidence was that when he now compares his vaccinated and unvaccinated children he notes that the unvaccinated children are in better psychological health than those vaccinated traditionally. He did not suggest that there were any further physical ramifications for his vaccination damaged daughter. Dr G said that this experience made him realise that he couldn’t rely on orthodox medical advice and had to do his own research, which led to his career change to homeopathy.
114. To the extent to which Dr G’s evidence conflicts with Dr J’s evidence, principally the efficacy of HP, I prefer Dr J’s evidence.

CONCLUSION

115. The question which I must determine is whether it is in the child’s best interests to be traditionally vaccinated or to continue with the program initiated by the mother. For that parenting issue, some considerations in s 60CC(3) are relevant. The child’s best interests will be the paramount but not the only consideration. To the extent that the mother seeks an injunction in aid of a finding in her favour, jurisdiction derives from s 68B and an injunction may be granted if “it appears to the court to be just and equitable to do so”.
116. From a consideration of all of the evidence, and in particular the evidence of Dr G and Dr J, it appears to me that the efficacy of homoeopathic vaccines in preventing infectious diseases has not been adequately scientifically demonstrated. Dr J’s evidence is that there is as yet not enough evidence that HP vaccines work. I accept that evidence as being accurate.
117. I note that the child is already eight years old, and thus the likelihood of her contracting one of the diseases against which she could be vaccinated is reduced. I note also that many of the diseases against which the child could be immunised are not widespread in the Australian community.
118. Nevertheless, the likelihood of the child being exposed to infectious diseases for which traditional immunisations are available is not zero. This is particularly so if, in the future, she travels overseas to countries where some of these diseases are more prevalent in the community.
119. I accept that both forms of immunisation carry risks, but that the risks of both forms of immunisation are relatively low.
120. In these circumstances, I find that not immunising the child by way of conventional immunisation would expose her to a risk of harm through infection with a preventable disease which risk is unacceptable in the context of traditional immunisation practices. The risk of harm as a result of traditional vaccination is not so high as to outweigh the risk of infection.
121. I do not regard the child’s views as relevant to the issue of immunisation. She lacks the maturity and understanding to appreciate the matters now under consideration.
122. I have regard to the different roles which each parent has in the child’s life. I have regard to the relationship between the child and the other children in the father’s household and the stepmother. Having regard to the benefits and negligible risks associated with traditional immunisation, I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of the child to be ostracised from that household because she is not immunised. It is not determinative but is a matter to which I have regard.
123. I have already been critical of the extent to which each parent has lost sight of the emotional needs and wellbeing of the child and have, up to the date of the trial, failed to heed the warning of Mr H delivered in 2010 that:

The prognosis for [the child’s] ongoing psychological and emotional health is poor if the parties fail to reach a rapprochement and come to terms with the need for a more cooperative and authentic approach to the joint parenting of [the child].

124. The father’s behaviour in having the child immunised in secret reflects very poorly on his attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood. I reject his position that “the end justifies the means”. I am not critical of the mother. She has openly followed a program of homeopathic immunisation with the full knowledge of the father and without subterfuge. She genuinely embraces it as being in the child’s best interests. I do not conclude that homeopathic immunisation is best for the child or that it is a realistic and effective alternative to traditional immunisation. However, that does not detract from my assessment of the mother’s attitude to the discharge of her parental responsibilities as being genuine and, save for the dreadful and ongoing parental conflict, beneficial to the child.
125. I will make an order that the child be vaccinated traditionally according to a schedule of catch-up vaccines to be prepared by Dr J. The father will be responsible for obtaining the schedule and the mother must be provided with an opportunity to verify it prior to the course of immunisations being commenced.
126. It follows that I will not grant the mother’s application for injunctive relief.
127. Regarding the manner in which the traditional vaccination schedule is to be carried out, I am not convinced on the mother’s evidence that she is capable of presenting the traditional vaccination to the child as being a “good thing”. I am, on the other hand, confident that the father and Mrs Kingsford believe that traditional immunisation would be “good” for the child and would be able to present it to her in that light. In those circumstances, I propose that the father and his wife, Mrs Kingsford be responsible for taking the child to her immunisation appointments.
128. The evidence regarding the child’s familiarity with Dr O is persuasive, and I propose to order that he carry out the vaccinations in accordance with the schedule prepared by Dr J. I note also that Dr O offers vaccination free of charge.
129. I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests for Dr O to administer the immunisations. This is not a convenient locale for the father or his wife. However, against that inconvenience I weigh the fact that the child and mother know and trust their doctor and that the mother will be able to discuss the program with him at her expense and convenience to what, I am satisfied, will be an enhanced degree of comfort to herself and the child.
130. I do not consider that it is in the child’s best interests to receive single dose immunisations. Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is one example of combined dose immunisations. Dr J opined that the combined dose is safe and appropriate and I accept that is the case. I acknowledge the mother’s concerns but prefer that the child be immunised by as few injections as children in the mainstream receive. Of course, there will be extra immunisations administered by way of “catch up”. However I am not in favour of the mother’s early preference for single dose immunisation.
131. Any expense for the immunisations can be borne by the father. As noted above, I was informed that Dr O offers vaccination free of charge. However, if an expense does arise it should be borne by the father as I take into account that the mother has already undertaken the arduous task of the homeopathic course.
132. For the above reasons, I make the orders set out at the beginning of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding one-hundred-and-thirty-two (132) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered on 19 October 2012.

Associate:

Date: 19 October 2012

[1] B & B: Family Law Reform Act (1997) FLC 92-755.