Last updated 08 July 2017
Readers may recall that late last year, the Victorian Supreme Court heard an appeal against a decision of the Children’s Court ordering the vaccination of children under the temporary care of the state, against the wishes of the biological parents.
Legal Aid Victoria had brought the appeal on behalf of the mother of three children who had been placed in foster care under Interim Accommodation Orders in August 2017. The appeal concerned the scope of the Children’s Court’s powers, under 263(7) of the Children Youth and Families Act 2005, to impose conditions, in the best interests of children in temporary care, but which may have long-term consequences.
The Supreme Court was not asked to review the finding of the Children’s Court that vaccination was in the best interests of the children, because notably, Legal Aid Victoria elected to not appeal that finding even though, as will be shown below, it had been procured, in large part, by the false and misleading submissions of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).