Guardianship dispute — vaccination — immunisation — measles epidemic — anti-vaccine activist — New Zealand Ministry of Health guidelines — homeopathic medicine — childcare facilities — parenting order — care and contact arrangements — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 15, 16 & 46R — Family Court Rules 2002, r 170 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZFLR 884 — Brown v Argyll [2006] NZFLR 705. The parties could not agree on a raft of issues relating to their only child. The most heated issue was whether the two-year-old child should be immunised. The mother initially entirely opposed the child being immunised but during the course of proceedings agreed it was in the welfare and best interests of the child to be vaccinated in line with New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) guidelines, with conditions imposed. The father wanted the child immunised as soon as possible, especially in light of the measles epidemic occurring in Auckland at the time. A medical expert gave evidence that the child was at more risk of being harmed through contamination than she was from receiving the vaccination. Medical evidence was also given supporting the MOH guidelines and pointing to an age specific plan that could be applied. Based on the evidence, the Judge determined it was in the welfare and best interests of the child for the father to take her to be immunised as soon as practicable. The child was to receive all necessary catch up vaccines and any future vaccines she needed in line with MOH guidelines. The issue was particularly pressing as somebody at the child's daycare had measles. The mother also sought to treat the child using alternative or homeopathic remedies. The Judge decided this would be allowable on the advice of a doctor or pharmacist for minor ailments. Any further treatment would require agreement from the father. The father sought a shared care arrangement. Due to his work schedule this would require the child to attend a second preschool while in his care. The Judge did not believe this would be in the welfare and best interests of the child. It would disrupt her routine and cause her stress. A second daycare would suit the father's needs but not the child's. That application was declined but an order was made giving the father more contact during weekends and holidays. Judgment Date: 12 September 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *