Parents may have the power to prevent their children in state care from being vaccinated if a Supreme Court appeal is successful on Wednesday, possibly setting a dangerous precedent in the child protection system.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A young Melbourne mother is fighting an order by the Children's Court compelling her children to be immunised while in the temporary care of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Legal Aid, which is backing the woman's appeal, said the Supreme Court appeal to be heard on Wednesday would "clarify parental rights for many other families caught up in the child protection system".
The case will test whether the government and Children's Court can make "major decisions" about children while they are in temporary state care including schooling, religion and medical procedures.
But the move has angered health experts and state ministers who say the move could set a dangerous precedent for children in state care.
Minister for Families and Children Jenny Mikakos slammed the move and said it was in the best interests of children to be vaccinated.
"We don't take advice on the health of our kids from quacks pedalling lies and misinformation about vaccinations," she said.
"We follow the experts - not dangerous ideologues. The science is absolutely clear - vaccinations save lives.
"We act in the best interests of children whether they're in the state's care or not."
But the state government is not able to block the appeal as Victoria Legal Aid is an independent body.
Health Minister Jill Hennessy told radio station 3AW the Legal Aid challenge was a disappointing use of resources when health experts were battling to promote vaccination.
"I'd be very disappointed if other resources were being utilised in support of those that are opposed to vaccination, but there are independent processes about who gets Legal Aid and for what."
Legal Aid's executive director of family, youth and children's law, Nicole Rich, insisted the organisation was not taking a position on immunisation.
"This appeal tests the power of the Children's Court to allow the government to make a major long-term decision about a child," she said.
"Government intervention in a family to keep children safe, or to remove children, is a big decision and needs proper scrutiny.
"We need to know if the court can grant power to the government to override parents' wishes when the law is clear they can't otherwise do that."
The appeal comes after the Children's Court ruled children under an interim accommodation order could be immunised by the Department of Health and Human Services.
