Dispute between guardians — medical treatment — vaccinations — immunisations — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 16, 46R & 133 — MJA v HES Christchurch FAM-1999-009-002003, 5 September 2005 — Stone v Reader [2016] NZFC 6130. The parties were involved in Care of Children Act proceedings relating to their four children. The issues for determination were a review and determination of the medical treatment of one of the children; and whether or not all four children should receive immunisations, and if so, which ones. The applicant mother supported the children being vaccinated, and the father was opposed to some vaccinations. The Judge considered the medical evidence in relation to the first child and noted that there was agreement that treatment should be ongoing. The Judge did not have jurisdiction to direct how often the child should receive treatment, but had to determine whether the decision relating to ongoing treatment should be interim or final. The Judge determined it was appropriate to make the decision interim until the parties had a chance at the substantive hearing to provide further input, which provided for the child's ongoing care in the meantime. With regards to the immunisation issue, the Judge noted that the Court did not have jurisdiction to intervene with the decision of the parents if the immunisations were "routine in nature", and that immunisations were not compulsory but were recommended by the Ministry of Health (MOH). The Judge considered that the MOH immunisation programme could possibly be regarded as "routine", but that there was no specific evidence not to follow the recommendations. The Judge concluded it was in the welfare and best interests of the children to be vaccinated in accordance with the programme. Judgment Date: 9 May 2017. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *