Guardianship — vaccination — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 15, 16 & 46R — Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 House of Lords — Stone v Reader [2016] NZFC 6130. The parties were the parents of three young children. They had agreed when they were still together years prior that they would not have their children vaccinated. The applicant father had changed his mind and sought orders from the Family Court that the three children be vaccinated. The respondent mother opposed the order based on the prior agreement between her and the father, her claims that their firstborn had adverse reactions to the first round of vaccinations, and her strong religious beliefs. In the event that the Court ordered the children be vaccinated, the mother proposed a vaccination safety protocol requiring the vaccinations be spaced out to every six months, additional nutrient supplements, and blood tests before and after each vaccination to monitor immunities. According to the Care of Children Act, the Court's first and paramount consideration must be the wellbeing and best interests of the children. The Court made an order that the children be vaccinated, relying on evidence from the children's GP which was based on a large body of research that indicated that the vaccines were safe and reliable. The Court rejected the claim that the parties should be bound by an agreement made years prior, when the situation for them or their children may have since changed. The mother's proposed vaccine safety protocol was also rejected on the grounds that there was no information provided as to the safety of such a protocol. Judgment Date: 21 June 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *