FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KINGSFORD & KINGSFORD [2012] FamCA 889

FAMILY LAW — CHILDREN — immunisation — traditional or homeopathic —

best interests — overarching parental conflict

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

B & B: Family Law Reform Act (1997) FLC 92-755

APPLICANT: Mr Kingsford

RESPONDENT: Ms Kingsford

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER: Ms Marie Casey

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9459 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 19 October 2012

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 27 – 28 March 2012

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Self Represented

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Self Represented

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Swart

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Trapski Family Law

COUNSEL FOR THE INDEPENDENT Ms Byrnes

CHILDREN’S LAWYER

SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT Victoria Legal Aid

CHILDREN’S LAWYER

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 1

ORDERS
(1) The mother and the father forthwith do all acts and things necessary to ensure
that the child T born … August 2004 receives any and all childhood
vaccinations/inoculations as are recommended by Dr J of the Royal Children’s
Hospital so that the child is fully immunised to a level which is equivalent to a
child of her age as prescribed or recommended in the current National
Immunisation Program Schedule published by the Australian Government,
Department of Health and Ageing.

(2) Once the child’s level of immunisation has been brought up to date as
provided in the preceding paragraph of this Order, the mother and the father
do all acts and things necessary to ensure that the child continues to receive
into the future such immunisations as are recommended within the National
Immunisation Program, or its successor, for a child of her age with the
exception of the Human Papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil) or like treatment
for the prevention of cervical cancer.

(3) For the purpose of implementing the obligations of the parents which arise
pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Order:-

(a) The father do all acts and things necessary to obtain from Dr J his
recommendation in writing for full immunisation program for the child
T inclusive of catch up immunisations;

(b) The father provide the mother and Dr O with a copy of the written
recommendations of Dr J promptly upon receipt and then not proceed
with the immunisations until 14 days have elapsed;

(c) The mother be at liberty to verify Dr J’s recommendations with Dr J (at

her own expense) and/or Dr O (at her own expense);

(d) The father ensure that all immunisations be administered by Dr O or, in

the event that he is unavailable, his appropriately qualified nominee;

(e) The father provide to the mother with not less than 14 days notice in
writing of the date and time of the child’s immunisation appointments
which, for the avoidance of doubt, should fall within the face to face
time which the child spends with the father pursuant to parenting orders
or as has been agreed between the parents;

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 2

 (f) The father pay and be solely responsible for the reasonable cost of
obtaining the recommendation from Dr J and the administration of the
immunisations by Dr O or his nominee;

(g) The dosages of vaccine and inoculations, including whether they be

combined vaccinations, be as recommended by Dr J;

(h) The mother do all acts and things necessary to:-

(i) deliver the child’s yellow/red booklet entitled “My Health and
Development Record” to Dr O not less than 24 hours prior to
any vaccination appointment (notified to her pursuant to sub-
paragraph (e) hereof);
(ii) provide the father with a copy of the said booklet initially;
(iii) provide the father with a copy of further endorsements in the
said booklet referrable to immunisations received from time to
time.
(4) I DIRECT that the independent children’s lawyer provide a copy of this Order
and my reasons for decision to:-

(a) Doctor J;

(b) Doctor O, and

(c) such other medical or like health professional as she considers, in

furtherance of the child’s best interests, ought to have that information –

and, for that purpose, the independent children’s lawyer be provided with three
extra copies of this Order and my reasons for decision.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the mother is at liberty to provide a copy of my
reasons for decision to Dr G.

(6) I reserve liberty to the parties to apply in relation to the implementation of this
Order.

(7) I reserve liberty to the parties to apply in 2016 in relation to the child
receiving the Human Papillomavirus vaccine (Gardasil) or like treatment for
the prevention of cervical cancer and for that purpose the matter may, if one
of the parties so seek, be listed before me on its first return date for directions.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 3

(8) Unless a Notice of Appeal is filed, upon compliance by the independent
children’s lawyer with paragraph 4 of this Order, the order requesting the
appointment of an independent children’s lawyer be, and is hereby,
discharged.

(9) All exhibits and documents produced on subpoena be returned to the person
tendering or producing same.

(10) All extant applications be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym
Kingsford & Kingsford has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g)
of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 4

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9459/09

Mr Kingsford
Applicant

And

Ms Kingsford
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION
1. This is an application for parenting orders in relation to the child T born
in August 2004. She is eight years old. Her parents are separated, and,
in accordance with orders made by consent before me on 8 September
2011, the child lives with her mother and spends time with her father
during school terms on alternate weekends, for half of school holidays,
and by telephone twice a week with arrangements for contact on
birthdays, Christmas and other special occasions. The question of
whether the child is to be immunised by way of homeopathic or
traditional vaccination remains outstanding, and that is the issue before
me today.
2. The mother’s position is in her amended response to the father’s
initiating application filed 23 December 2011. The orders sought by the
father were resolved by the parenting orders described above. By way of
the outstanding matter, the mother seeks that the child be
homeopathically immunised by her and that the father, his servants and
agents, be restrained by injunction from otherwise immunising the child,
or allowing anyone else to do so, without the express written permission
of the mother.
3. The mother’s amended response followed an incident on 20 January
2010 when the father’s wife, Mrs E Kingsford, took the child to the N
Medical Centre, where the child received traditional vaccinations for
diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, HIB, measles, mumps,
rubella and meningococcal C. Prior to this incident, the child had been
immunised according to the homeopathic regime of vaccination. The

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 5

 traditional vaccination of the child at the Medical Centre occurred
without the mother’s prior knowledge or consent.

BACKGROUND
4. The father was born in Australia in 1954. The mother was born overseas
in 1968.
5. In 2000 the parties met at a development course while the mother was
travelling in Australia but still residing in the United Kingdom. The
parties lived together briefly. In interview with the family consultant the
father described this early romance as “rather rushed,” and the wife, in
her affidavit filed 28 October 2009, described it as a “whirlwind.” The
mother then returned to the United Kingdom and the parties continued
to correspond. The father proposed to the mother over the phone in
early 2001, and the parties were married in the United Kingdom in 2001.
6. In June 2001 the mother arrived in Australia to live permanently. Both
parties described in interview with the family consultant that there were
difficulties with the marriage from the outset. The father reported that
the parties argued, that the mother was “unsettled, unable to finish
courses and establish a career direction, neglectful of domestic duties
and generally unmotivated” and that he felt controlled and oppressed.
The mother reported that the father told her during their honeymoon that
he viewed the marriage as a mistake and that this, combined with what
she perceived as racism against her English heritage, made her
adjustment to living in Australia very difficult. The parties separated on
several occasions.
7. The mother then became pregnant. She reported to the family
consultant that after she told the father of her pregnancy he said that he
was thinking of leaving her, which led to the eventual demise of their
relationship. The child T was born in August 2004.
8. In October 2004 the parties separated finally. At the time of the
separation there was an informal arrangement for the father to spend
time with the child, which arrangement was combined with his use of a
business office in the family home. The father described his initial
contact with the child to the family report writer as being “ad hoc and
largely controlled by [the mother].” The mother described that the
father was disinterested in the child, and thus that she had to drive the
arrangements to foster the father-daughter relationship, going so far as to
remain in Australia rather than returning to the UK so as to encourage
that bond.
9. In 2005 the mother returned to France to see the maternal grandparents,
who travelled back to Australia with the mother for an extended holiday.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 6

 Around this time the father moved his office out of the family home and
re-partnered with Mrs Kingsford, who had two sons from a previous
relationship. The father described to the family report writer that the
relationship between the father and mother deteriorated markedly after
this.
10. It is fairly obvious that the parents had no previous experience of unity
or harmony when they separated and the child was then only two
months old. By the time that the father commenced to live with Mrs
Kingsford and her boys, the child was one year old. Unfortunately, there
was no positive adult relationship upon which the mother and father
could graft a successful parenting relationship into the future. Each
retreated from the other and, it appears to me, have continued to do so.
The father now disavows the parenting styles to which he acquiesced
prior to forming a new household with Mrs Kingsford. Having heard the
evidence and seen the parents over a number of interlocutory hearings,
including the interim hearings about choice of school, time spent and
communication, I conclude that the child has been disadvantaged and
has suffered as a result of her parents’ behaviours and rigid attitude of
non-engagement. I will say a little more about this later but note, at this
introductory point in my reasons, that whether the child is immunised by
homeopathic or traditional method is not the most pressing issue relating
to her wellbeing. The most disturbing aspect of this case is parental
conflict.
11. On 16 April 2009 the parties divorced.
12. On 21 October 2009 the father filed his initiating application and
affidavit in this court, and on 30 October 2009 Senior Registrar
Fitzgibbon made orders, inter alia: that the child be enrolled at C
School; that the matter be referred to the Child Responsive Program;
and listing the matter for 11 December 2009 at 9.45am, on which date
interim orders were made by consent for the father to spend time with
the child.
13. In March 2010 M was born to the father and Mrs Kingsford. Prior to the
birth, the father’s wife took the child T to the N Medical Centre on 20
January 2010 where the child was given traditional vaccinations for
diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, HIB, measles, mumps,
rubella and meningococcal C. This occurred without the mother’s prior
knowledge or consent. I am satisfied that the father knew beforehand
and acquiesced to the event. He is unapologetic.
14. On 2 February 2011 the family report of Mr H was published.
15. On 29 June 2011 the report of Dr J was published, which report
recommended that the child be traditionally immunised through a

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 7

 program of ‘catch-up’ vaccinations to bring her up to the standard level
of vaccination for a child of her age.
16. On 16 August 2011, pursuant to orders of 12 July 2011, the parties
attended a Roundtable Dispute Management Conference, and agreed on
parenting arrangements for the child in all matters other than
immunisation. Those arrangements were made into orders by consent
by me on 8 September 2011.
17. On 5 January 2012 Dr G’s affidavit on homeopathic and traditional
vaccination was filed by the mother, which report recommended
generally that parents be free to choose either homoeoprophylaxis or
traditional immunisation for their children.
18. The mother, according to her affidavit filed 20 December 2012, lives
with the child in what she describes as a “simple and healthy way of
life.” They eat organic and unprocessed foods when possible and use
“non-toxic” cleaning and personal products. The mother’s evidence is:
16. I currently work part time from home in a health and well-
being industry, focussing on eliminating toxins from our
homes and environment as well as educating people in food
and nutritional support. In my line of work I recommend
naturopaths, homeopathic doctors as well as integrative
General Practitioners for people with specific health
challenges or who want a professional opinion or consultation.
17. As part of my work it is important that I attend regular health
talks with naturopaths and other healthcare professionals to
keep up to date with new research and health information. I
attend seminars, workshops, listen to audio CD’s created by
healthcare professionals, and read scientific and medical
articles and books.
18. [The child T] has been part of the Steiner Education from
playgroup, kinder, prep and now school. Within the Steiner
community the lifestyle imbues the way we live. The toys are
made from natural products such as wood, wool, wax, silk etc.
I believe most families who attend our school, as like us, will
use natural and non-toxic products in the home and focus on
building up the immune system of the child through
homeopathics, as well as eating organic and biodynamic food.
I believe from speaking with parents and teachers that a large
number of children who attend some form of Steiner school
are not vaccinated conventionally.
19. The father did not file affidavitory evidence on the issue to be decided.
He relied on the evidence of Dr J, single expert witness. The father was
cross-examined.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 8

RELEVANT LAW – PARENTING ISSUES
20. These proceedings are brought under Part VII of the Act. Pursuant to s
60CA, in deciding to make any parenting order in relation to the child, I
must regard the child’s best interests as the paramount consideration and
that is how I approach these proceedings.
21. Subject to the best interests of the child being the paramount
consideration,
s 60B sets out the aims and principles of Part VII. The section provides
the context within which the relevant best interests factors listed in s
60CC are to be examined and ultimately weighed.
22. In determining the best interests of a particular child, I am required to
consider two primary considerations and several additional
considerations, listed in
s 60CC of the Act.
23. The primary considerations are set out in s 60CC(2) and are described as
follows:-
(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with
both of the child’s parents; and

(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological

harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or
family violence.

24. The additional considerations listed in s 60CC(3) of the Act are

numerous but not exhaustive. S 60CC(3)(m) of the Act requires me to
take into account ‘any other fact or circumstance that the court thinks is
relevant’. This ensures that the infinite variety of individual children’s
circumstances can be addressed.1 I will have regard to the primary and
additional considerations, however this is a narrow issue.
25. In this case, under orders made by consent before me on 8 September
2011, the parties have already reached an agreed resolution to the
majority of the parenting issues, including that each has equal shared
parental responsibility, and the child live with her mother and spend
time with her father. It is not necessary for me to revisit the
appropriateness or otherwise of the shared care or substantial time in
light of the arrangements to which the parties recently consented and
which they agree continue to be appropriate.

1
B & B: Family Law Reform Act (1997) FLC 92-755.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 9

THE EVIDENCE
26. As suggested by the Mr H in his report on the family, it appears that the
question of the immunisation of the child has, for these parents and the
father’s new wife, transformed from a question about the health of their
daughter (or, in the case of the father’s new wife, her step-daughter) into
a forum for the more fundamental parental conflict. Mr H wrote:
45. This issue more than any other illustrates the struggle between
the parties for initiative and control over the arrangements and
philosophical guidelines of [the child T’s] life. Given that [Mrs
Kingsford] has responsibility for the day to day running of her
families [sic] domestic life it is likely that [the child] will become
increasingly triangulated between the different parenting
philosophies of these two strong willed women. The prognosis for
[the child’s] ongoing psychological and emotional health is poor if
the parties fail to reach a rapprochement and come to terms with the
need for a more cooperative and authentic approach to the joint
parenting of [the child].
27. Mr H’s observations and conclusion accord with my own. The parents
have not reached a rapprochement and nor have they come to terms with
the need for a more cooperative and authentic approach to the joint
parenting of the child. That the question of the immunisation method for
the child has become the site for broader parental conflict was evident in
the evidence of both parents, both on affidavit and in the witness box.
28. In relation to immunisation, Mr H opined:
43. As stated, the writer was keen to facilitate a meeting between
[the mother] and [the father’s new wife] to explore the issues of
communication and immunization but this did not occur. The
views of the parties are unchanged on this issue. Each party
wishes to continue on with their respective immunization
program. The writer does not have the medical expertise to
comment on this issue and there are fundamental ideological
differences between the parties. The result being that [the
child] remains only partly immunized by both programs.
44. The writer respectfully recommends an Order for the parties to
seek the opinion of a specialist Paediatrician and for the parties
to abide by the opinion of the specialist. The specialist should
address the efficacy or otherwise of the two approaches and the
implications for [the child] of continuing or discontinuing
either approach.

The Mother
29. The mother presented as a genuine witness who gave truthful and
considered answers. She appeared not to have much comprehension that

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 10

 her case may not succeed and obviously had given little or no
consideration to the conditions in which an order for traditional
immunisation could be implemented.
30. In the mother’s affidavit, she sets out her position that the child should
not be traditionally vaccinated, and should continue to receive
homoeopathic immunisations:
12. The homoeoprophylaxis is administered from birth to 84
months. [The child] has only two further vaccinations required
to complete the entire regime.
13. I do not see that there is any point in exposing [the child] to
risk by now making her receive the more conventional
vaccinations. I say that the homoeoprophylaxis regime is more
than adequate for her needs, provides her with immunity
against childhood diseases, and does so in a far safer and more
risk adverse way.
31. Despite maintaining that the child should be homoeopathically
immunised, the mother, in her oral evidence, responded to some
questions about what she would seek in the event that I order, contrary
to her wishes, that the child receive conventional immunisations.
32. The mother’s position was that she would like to be the one who takes
the child to her immunisation appointments. When I asked the mother
what she would say to the child in relation to traditional immunisation,
she struggled to respond, restating her commitment to homeopathic
immunisation. She then suggested that she might tell the child that she
could now have the traditional immunisations because the was “big girl”
and was “strong enough” for them. Finally the mother suggested that
she would have to say that the immunisations were “good for her,” and
that she was “brave enough” to have them now.
33. The mother also deposed that she would like to be the one to take the
child to the appointments so that she could monitor the child’s health
before and after the vaccinations. However, my impression is that the
mother will be unable to convey to the child that the immunisations are
of benefit to her. My impression is that the mother will be unable to
conceal from the child her genuine belief that traditional immunisation
is harmful and, having regard to her belief in the homeopathic
alternative, unnecessary.
34. The mother conceded that it would probably not make a difference to
the child for the mother be the one to take her to the appointments, but
that it would make the mother feel better about the process if it is she
who attends. I accept that is so. The mother is the child’s primary carer
whose emotional wellbeing impacts directly on the child so I take into

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 11

 account the mother’s preference to accompany the child to the
appointments. However, on balance, I think that it is best for the father
or his wife to attend any immunisations because they, more than the
mother, will treat it as routine and ordinary.
35. The mother’s position was also that she would like that Dr O administer
any traditional vaccinations to the child. The mother’s evidence was
that she and the child have a good relationship with Dr O. Dr O is an
anthroposophical doctor:
19. Our family doctor ([Dr O]) is an anthroposophical doctor and
General Practitioner. Anthroposophical medicine is based upon the
anthroposophic medical indications proposed in Swizerland by Dr
Rudolf Steiner (PhD 1861-1925) and developed by Dr Ita Wegman
(Dutch Physical 1876-1943). Anthroposophical medicine is a
complementary approach to medicine that integrates modern
medicine with homeopathic medicine. It is a holistic approach that
supports health by strengthening physiology and individuality,
rather than solely addressing factors that cause disease.
Conventional treatments such as surgery and medications are still
used as necessary.
36. The mother also stressed that, if the child is ordered to be traditionally
immunised, she would like that the child receive each vaccination
independently, if possible, rather than in combination. The mother’s
evidence was that this would reduce the “toxins” to which the child
would be exposed. The mother clarified that by “toxins” she was
referring not to the active ingredients of the vaccination but rather to the
preservative additions. When, however, the mother saw the National
Immunisation Program Schedule for 2007 produced by the Australian
Government Department of Health and Aging, she appeared to
reconsider her position in light of the number of vaccinations required,
she wavered and said that she would like to consider whether it may be
better for the child to receive combined vaccinations to reduce the
number of injections which are necessary. However, the mother reserved
her final decision by saying that she would need to make that assessment
after seeing the revised schedule of catch-up vaccinations prepared for
the child.
37. The mother also deposed that her preference was that the child have a
blood test to see which diseases she is already immune to, as this may
potentially reduce the number of vaccinations required, despite that this
may mean that the child may have to have more needles overall.
38. The mother maintained that she had never discussed the issue of
immunisation with the child and that, in her opinion, the child was likely
to be unaware that it was a source of parental conflict. I accept that the

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 12

 mother gave evidence honestly on this point but do not accept that it is
accurate. In my view, the mother gives insufficient weight to the fact
that the child is exposed to views and attitudes from two households as
well as from school friends and the parents of school friends who, on the
mother’s evidence, have views on homeopathic immunisation which
accord with her own.
39. The mother expressed concern about the secret immunisation of the
child, both in terms of her personal feelings of disempowerment in
relation to the incident, but also in terms of potential negative health
consequences for the child as a result of having an unknown vaccination
status, risking, for example, accidental double vaccination. The mother
further expressed some concern that, after her first set of traditional
vaccinations, the child appeared to have a bit of a runny nose, a cold and
mood swings, but the mother’s evidence was that she could not
definitively link that to the vaccination. As I indicated above, I am
satisfied that the mother’s views are genuinely held. I deal later with the
evidence of the experts.
40. In relation to psychological distress as a result of the first set of
vaccinations, the mother’s evidence was that the child had said that it
hurt and that she didn’t want the stepmother to take her to have needles
again, but the mother conceded that the child did not cry when reporting
the incident to her and that there were no further discussions about it.
41. The mother denied allegations that she was “hypochondriac” in regards
to the child’s health.
42. Like the father through his new wife, it appears that the mother has done
a great deal of independent research on the question of traditional versus
homoeopathic immunisation, in the mother’s case, through the internet,
books and talking to other supporters of homeopathic immunisation.
43. Although the mother’s evidence is that she believes that she may have
been traditionally immunised, that she has taken antibiotics, that she has
previously been a smoker, and that she administers Ventolin to the child
and has given her antibiotics, the mother maintains that she opposes
traditional immunisation for the child because it would expose her to
harmful ‘toxins.’ The mother said that she did not see any inconsistency
between her objection to the toxins in vaccinations and her willingness
to give the child other traditional medicines such as antibiotics or
Ventolin.
44. In relation to the child’s diagnosed infection with whooping cough when
she was in kinder, the mother’s evidence was that it had not shaken her
confidence in HP immunisation, but that she appreciated that both
homoeopathic and traditional immunisation are not 100 per cent

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 13

 effective and noted that, for example, Mrs Kingsford’s sons had been
traditionally immunised against chickenpox but had still contracted that
illness.
The Father
45. The father was not a good witness. He acknowledged that he had some
difficulty with numbers, and appeared to struggle to read dates and
recall when events occurred. The father’s difficulties in giving evidence
extended to the point that he was unable to remember important details
of his own life with his daughter, for example, the time which he had
spent with her prior to the current more restrictive arrangements which
he sought and consented to on 8 September 2011. The father’s evidence
was also often delivered in the first person plural, “us”, which appeared
to refer to the father and his new wife as a having a single unified
position in the dispute. Like the mother, the father seemed to have done
significant personal research into the issue of vaccination, and at times
became distracted from the question of what was in the best interests of
his daughter, focusing instead on the broader debate and health statistics,
which was a matter better left to the expert witnesses.
46. I am satisfied on the father’s evidence that the father abrogated
parenting decisions to the mother until he commenced to cohabit with
Mrs E Kingsford whereupon he adopted the stepmother’s views on
parenting as his own. He staunchly supports the stepmother’s opinions
but appeared to me to have very few of his own.
47. In relation to the incident on 20 January 2010, the father agreed that he
had authorised his wife to take the child to receive traditional
vaccinations without the consent of her mother. The father’s position
was that he had hoped to continue to secretively vaccinate the child
throughout her childhood and had hoped her mother would never find
out. The father said that he had believed that the mother would become
very upset if she discovered that the child had been traditionally
immunised and so he had decided that it would be non productive for
the mother to be told.
48. Although, at the time that the father unilaterally arranged for the child to
receive immunisation injections, he was already before the court in
relation to parenting issues for the child, and had, one month prior, had
legal representation, he did not bring an application for her to be
traditionally vaccinated. The father’s evidence was that he failed to do
so because he felt that a formal application and hearing would be too
time consuming and too expensive. He was concerned that his unborn
child M might “die” in the interim. The implication was that death
would be as a consequence of the unborn child contracting a disease

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 14

 from the child T in respect of which an immunisation could have been
given and was, therefore, avoidable.
49. The father alleged that the mother was a hypochondriac with respect to
the child’s health, and that she was inconsistent in relation to “toxins”
and was happy for the child to be exposed to all sorts of foreign
material, but drawing the line at immunisation.
50. The father also expressed concern that the child was not properly
educated and could not read or write.
51. The father’s evidence was that the child had, despite being
homeopathically immunised, previously contracted whooping-cough.
The father oscillated on the question of whether the child’s whooping
cough was linked to a bad cough that he had twelve months later, and it
is of note that the father had been traditionally immunised against
whooping cough.
52. The father’s position was that he had the child conventionally
immunised because: she was starting school and thought that it would be
required; her non immunised status could have exposed his unborn
daughter M to potential dangerous infections during her infancy prior to
her vaccination; and that immunisation might stop the child T dying of
an infectious disease. The father agreed that the risk to the child of
contracting a fatal infectious disease in Australia was low, but his
opinion was that it was not zero, and he did not want to “play Russian
roulette” with her health.
53. The father’s evidence was that he did not consult with a doctor about
immunisation for the child prior to her being immunised, although it is
clear from his evidence that he has done significant subsequent research.
54. The father’s evidence was that if the child had not been immunised, his
wife may have prohibited the child from spending time with her half-
sister M as a baby. However he conceded that as M and the other
children in his household have now been immunised, this would be
unlikely to still be an issue.
55. The father’s position was that he felt that it had been in the child’s best
interests to be immunised by stealth because “the end justifies the
means.”

Doctor O
56. Doctor O was not required to give evidence in person, however the
Independent Children’s Lawyer informed the court that Dr O said he
would abide any order of the Court for traditional immunisation if

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 15

 requested by the parents to do so. There was no issue raised by either
parent and I accept the statement of the Independent Children’s Lawyer.
I consider that Dr O is eligible to conduct a program of traditional
immunisation for the child.

Doctor J
57. Doctor J has a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from
Melbourne University and is a Fellow of the Royal Australian College
of Physicians. He was an impressive witness. He balanced considerable
knowledge with considerable compassion for the mother’s position and
beliefs. He was respectful of Dr G but did not share his views.
58. At the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne Dr J is a principal
specialist, a consultant in the Emergency Department and a senior
paediatrician in the Child Behaviour Clinic. He has been in specialist
paediatric practice for over twenty years, and is in private practice as a
consultant paediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital and two other
medical centres.
59. Dr J prepared a report dated 29 June 2011 in relation to traditional
immunisation and homeopathic immunisation for the child T. It was Dr
J’s recommendation in that report that the child be immunised
traditionally and that she undertake a program of ‘catch-up’
immunisation to bring her up to the standard level of traditional
immunisation for a child of her age.
60. In reaching this conclusion, Dr J considered both the history of the
family and also research into homeopathic as compared to traditional
immunisation.
61. Dr J noted that, despite the child having followed a program of
homeopathic immunisation, whereby she received a total of twenty-
eight separate homeopathic remedies to protect her from serious
infectious disease, she was diagnosed with whooping cough (pertussis)
at the age of five, which diagnosis was confirmed with formal testing.
62. By way of context, Dr J also described accurately that the father and his
current partner, on becoming concerned that the child was not protected
from preventable diseases and that she was also placing their new baby
at risk, had taken the child to a general practitioner who had commenced
the traditional program of vaccination for her by way of a series of
injections and oral treatments. Dr J acknowledged that this was done
without the mother’s knowledge or consent. Dr J also noted the
mother’s claim that she is not averse to using traditional western
medicine to treat the child and had, for example, administered Ventolin
when the child had asthma. Dr J stated that the mother’s assessment

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 16

 was that the child has been healthy throughout her life with minimal
illness.
63. Dr J assessed the child as being of average height and weight for her age
and presenting as developmentally normal.
64. Considering the “relative merits of homeopathic prevention versus
traditional medical vaccination” Dr J stated that he had discussed the
child’s situation with Dr R, an immunisation specialist from the Royal
Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, and that he had also consulted a fact
sheet on homeopathy and vaccination provided by the National Centre
for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) dated December
2009 and information provided by the mother on homeopathic
prophylaxis (also known as homoeoprophylaxis or HP) authored by
homeopath Dr G.
65. Dr J posed the key question to which his expertise should be directed is:
“whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to indicate that
homeopathic prophylaxis or HP actually works.” I agree.
66. Dr J described that Dr G had referred to two studies from Brazil and
Cuba which indicated that HP was effective in preventing
Meningococcal Meningitis and Leptospirosis. Dr J stated that only one
of those diseases, Meningococcal Meningitis, is part of the mainstream
immunisation program, and that even if it is accepted that HP is
effective in preventing Meningococcal Meningitis, there is no evidence
to Dr J’s knowledge that HP is effective in preventing any of the other
vaccine preventable diseases covered by the traditional immunisation
program. Dr J noted that this is also the position of NCIRS.
67. Dr J further stated that the NCIRS fact sheet, the British Homeopathic
Association and the National Register of Homeopaths recommend that
people should receive conventional vaccinations and that homeopathic
preparations should not be recommended as a substitute for
conventional immunisation.
68. While acknowledging that traditional immunisations do not guarantee
protection against vaccine preventable illnesses, Dr J stated that:
incontrovertible evidence from numerous scientific studies attests to
the safety and effectiveness of our current traditional vaccination
program.
69. Dr J concluded that although he was “sympathetic” to the mother’s
position, he hoped that she could view his recommendation in the light
that both the British Homeopathic Association and the Australian
Register of Homeopaths “see traditional immunisation as
complementary to homeopathic treatments.”

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 17

70. Dr J recommended that, as suggested by immunisation specialist Dr R,
the child should be given the four month, six month, 18 month and four
year vaccination protocols at two monthly intervals until she has caught
up completely with the standard level of immunisation for a child of her
age, even though she has confirmed the natural pertussis infection. Dr J
stated that it would “seem to be inappropriate” to leave her only partially
protected by traditional immunisations.
71. Dr J also gave oral evidence on 28 March 2012, responding to the oral
evidence of Mr G for whose oral evidence and cross examination he was
present in court to hear.
72. In his oral evidence, Dr J maintained his recommendation in his
published report that the child be traditionally vaccinated, however he
noted the need to change the schedule of vaccinations as the child is
now almost a year older than at the date of his report.
73. Considering the risk-benefit ratio of traditional vaccination, Dr J
stressed that the risks of vaccination are outweighed by the risks of
natural infection with the diseases vaccinated against. He stated that, for
example, two out of 1000 children with measles have inflammation of
the brain, which can lead to seizures, brain damage or death. He noted
that measles vaccination can also cause severe reactions and brain
inflammation, however that this occurs in less than one in a million
cases. Dr J’s evidence was that vaccination is one of the most
significant advances in children’s health in the last hundred years.
74. Dr J was at pains to stress that he did not philosophically or morally
oppose homeopathic medicine and homoeoprophylaxis. His argument
was that there is insufficient evidence as to the effectiveness of HP to
justify its use as a replacement for traditional vaccination at the current
time.
75. Dr J suggested that the Cuban study of HP vaccination against
leptospirosis, referred to and relied upon by Dr G, represented one of the
weakest types of scientific analysis, and that while HP vaccination may
have been associated with the drop in rates of infection in that study,
causality had not been demonstrated. He also noted that in his twenty
years of medical practice he had never personally encountered a case of
leptospirosis. There were no inroads into this evidence in cross
examination of Dr J by counsel for the mother.
76. In relation to Dr G’s evidence as to the risks of traditional vaccination,
Dr J said that he was not aware of any link between traditional
vaccination and allergies. He conceded that there was a hypothetical
risk that introduction of foreign proteins in vaccinations early in life
may increase the risk of later allergic reactions to those proteins, but also

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 18

 gave evidence of a new school of thought emerging which suggests that
introducing foreign proteins early in life in fact guards against later
allergies. In relation to a link between traditional vaccination and
epilepsy, Dr J conceded that vaccines may lead to encephalitis as a result
of fever and febrile convulsions in one in a million cases, but he stressed
that the risk of encephalitis from fever was far greater as a result of
natural infection. In relation to Dr G’s suggestion that traditional
vaccination is linked to ADHD, Dr J stated that ADHD was a particular
area of interest of his, that ADHD has many causes and he was not
aware of a causative link between vaccination and ADHD in post
vaccination surveillance studies. In relation to an alleged link between
traditional vaccination and autism, Dr J’s evidence was that that debate
was over, and that large Scandinavian studies, as well as studies in
France and the United States, had disproved any potential link.
77. Dr J’s evidence was that: post initiation vaccine surveillance; the
widespread use of vaccination on millions of children; and published
articles in peer reviewed scientific journals; suggested to him that
traditional vaccination is relatively safe. I accept that evidence as
correct.
78. Dr J gave evidence that vaccination would not only be to the child’s
immediate benefit, but that immunisation serves a public policy of
helping to eliminate diseases in the wider community. Dr J said that if
immunisation levels in the community drop too low, then diseases may
survive in unimmunised members of the population, whereas high levels
of immunisation can lead to “herd immunity” and the eradication of
disease. I do not give public policy considerations any significant
weight in this case but have regard to it in the context of how reasonable
the views of the father and the stepmother are.
79. In relation to the child specifically, Dr J suggested that there was a
possibility that she may not need all traditional vaccinations. He said
that it was possible that the child may be immune to whooping cough as
a result of her previous diagnosed infection with that illness, and
moreover that she may be immune to other infectious diseases as a result
of natural exposure. He also stated that the risks of infectious diseases
are higher for infants than for children of the child’s age. Dr J’s
evidence was that immunisation specialist Dr R had suggested that
traditional immunisation for whooping cough is nevertheless desirable
for the child, as it may improve the child’s protection from the disease.
He also agreed that it may cover strains different from the strain which
infected the child. Dr J suggested that a blood test could be used to
assess the child’s immunity, and she could then be immunised only
against those diseases to which she was not already immune. When

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 19

 asked, however, Dr J’s evidence was that some vaccinations are difficult
or impossible to obtain individually, and come combined with other
vaccinations. This may make selecting specific vaccinations for the
child more difficult. Dr J estimated that the child may need
approximately six injections to ‘bring her up to speed’ or words to that
effect.
80. Dr J stated that traditional vaccinations for the child would be available
free of charge at the Royal Children’s Hospital and that the parents
could turn up without an appointment and have her vaccinated. His
evidence was that a general practitioner may also be able to vaccinate
the child, but that this may cause the parents expense, may involve
making appointments, the general practitioner would have to adhere to a
schedule of vaccination for the child that is different from the usual
schedule (as the child is commencing vaccination at a late age) and the
vaccines would need to be properly stored and fresh.
81. Regarding the preservatives and additives in traditional vaccines, Dr J’s
evidence was that there are some limited alternatives and different
brands, but that he wasn’t sure of the exact additives of the vaccines
save that no vaccine currently on the market contains heavy metals.
82. In relation to vaccination for polio, Dr J agreed that the child’s personal
risk of contracting that disease was extremely low, but that continued
immunisation of the population is important to prevent a resurgence of
the disease.
83. Dr J suggested that, of the vaccinations available, chicken pox may be
one of the less critical vaccinations, but tempered this recommendation
by noting that chicken pox may be the most serious illness that many
children suffer, and he agreed moreover that vaccination can also help to
prevent shingles later in life.
84. When questioned about the HPV vaccination, Dr J agreed that, given its
relative newness, it is difficult to know for certain how safe that
vaccination is. He stressed however that the vaccination guards against
serious consequences (cervical cancer being a major killer of middle
aged women). Ultimately he agreed that the decision to vaccinate the
child against HPV did not have to be made now.
85. Dr J’s evidence was that the child’s risk of infection may be reduced by
living in a household of other people who have been vaccinated, as they
would be less likely to transmit infection to her, but that the father’s two
year old child would not have yet finished her immunisation schedule
and thus having the child T, unimmunised, in the same household would
place that infant at risk of infectious diseases.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 20

86. Dr J’s evidence was that he does not believe that HP immunisation does
any harm, and that most doctors do not object to it as parallel
immunisation, but that he would oppose using HP vaccination in place
of traditional immunisation.
87. I accept Dr J’s evidence.
Doctor G

88. Doctor G is not a medical doctor. He has an Honours degree in

Economics and had a career in financial services prior to becoming a
homeopathic practitioner in 1984.
89. In 2004 he graduated from a PhD program to research
homoeoprophylaxis (HP).
90. Since 1992 Doctor G has held very senior positions in the field of
homeopathy, received recognition in the form of an award, and been a
leader in homeopathic education. Dr G has also authored a number of
books on homeopathy.
91. Dr G specialises in treating patients suffering chronic disease using
“constitutional and anti miasmic homeopathic treatment,” and describes
himself as an international expert on homeoprophylaxis. He advised
that when clients come to him regarding vaccination for their children,
he discusses options with them, including the option of traditional
vaccination. He said that he then details the risks and effectiveness of
HP and traditional vaccination, namely that in his opinion HP is safe and
effective, and that traditional vaccination is reasonably effective but has
both short and long term risks.
92. Dr G filed an affidavit on 5 January 2012, and also gave oral evidence
on 28 March 2012. He presented as a somewhat defensive but
nevertheless confident witness who tended to frame his evidence using
medical or homeopathic terminology and with a high level of detail,
which detail often was either only tangentially relevant or lacked
background context. This, at times, gave the impression that Dr G’s
focus was on the appearance of authoritativeness at the expense of
clarity, or perhaps even by way of that lack of clarity.
93. In his oral evidence, Dr G clarified that, in Australia, homeopathy is not
a registered profession and any person can call himself or herself a
‘homeopath.’ To be on the register of homeopaths, however, one has to
undergo a course of appropriate study. Dr G’s evidence was that, as well
as his PhD, he also has three diplomas in homeopathy.
94. In his affidavit filed 5 January 2012, Dr G agreed generally with Dr J
that there are some infectious diseases that should be protected against,

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 21

 however he disagreed with Dr J’s recommendation that the child be
protected by traditional vaccination, and also argued that the child
should not be vaccinated against pertussis (either traditionally or with
HP) as the child had already acquired the disease and that is “the most
effective form of natural immunisation.”
95. In his affidavit, Dr G agreed with Dr J that the “critical question” is
whether there is scientific evidence that HP actually works. Dr G
argued that HP is effective in preventing a number of diseases. To
substantiate his position Dr G stated in his affidavit that:
1. his research “determined individual rates” for whooping
cough, measles and mumps;
2. “the program researched” also covered tetanus, polio,
rubella, Hib and diphtheria and “there were no cases of
infection recorded”;
3. his current data collection includes Pneumococcal disease
and Meningococcal disease (Dr G did not state any
outcomes of that data collection);
4. “over 2.2 million people were homeophathically
immunised” against Leptospirosis in a Cuban study, and
“Cuban research has also collected data on Swine flu”
which research showed that “over 9.8 million people were
homeopathically immunised” against it.
96. Further in relation to the effectiveness of HP, Dr G listed (in both his
oral evidence and affidavit) four sources of evidence as to its efficacy
which he said that he discussed with his clients:
1. over 200 years of clinical evidence (although he did not
detail what was the substance of that evidence);
2. consistent evidence in short-term epidemic conditions
showing effectiveness of around 90 per cent (Dr G
referred, in his affidavit, to one study of children
vaccinated against meningococcal meningitis);
3. evidence showing the effectiveness of long-term HP at
90.4 per cent (Dr G, in his affidavit, directed the reader to
a book which he personally authored);
4. HP interventions involving 2.2 million people against
leptospirosis and 9.8 million people against swine flu (also
noted in his affidavit with reference to a book of his own
authorship).

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 22

97. Dr G described in great detail in his oral evidence the Cuban trials into
HP for leptospirosis, a water born bacterial disease which is endemic in
Cuba. Dr G agreed that the diseases which the child T would be
vaccinated against in Australia are diseases which are not endemic in
our community and indeed that some are diseases that are very rarely
found in Melbourne, Australia. He also agreed with counsel for the
independent children’s lawyer that leptospirosis is a disease that it not
well understood.
98. Dr G stated in his affidavit that:
…we find that because HP works on consistent natural principles
which do not change and do not rely on strain-specific versions of
antigens (as do vaccines), that once the method is established as
being effective for one or more diseases then it applies to all
diseases, as is demonstrated by the consistency of results across all
researchers and conditions of around 90% effectiveness.
99. Dr G noted that this concept is “very different” to traditional medical
principles, such as Dr J may be used to, but that it is fundamental to
natural medicine and homeopathy. This does not appear to me to be an
attempt to use “scientific evidence” to support the use of homeopathy,
but rather, Dr G is justifying the use of homeopathic immunisation using
principles which are “fundamental in natural medicine and homeopathy
in particular” and which are, on his own evidence, foreign to traditional
medical science.
100. Dr G concluded in his affidavit that there is “sufficient rigorous
evidence to show that HP is comparably effective to vaccination.”
When it was put to Dr G by counsel for the independent children’s
lawyer that the board which registers Australian homeopaths
acknowledges that there has not been sufficient scientific investigation
of homeopathic prophylaxis and therefore supports further controlled
ethical research into its use, Dr G responded that while he supports
further research, he does believe that there has been sufficient
investigation of HP to demonstrate its effectiveness.
101. Turning to the comparative efficacy of traditional vaccinations, Dr G, in
his affidavit, acknowledged that “orthodox publications” list a vaccine
effectiveness of between 75 per cent and 95 per cent. Dr G then stated
that in a book which was authored by Dr G himself, it was found that
“real-world effectiveness in wild outbreaks … can be much lower.” Dr
G also stated that “no efficacy trials exist” for certain vaccines such as
Hepatitis B for newborn infants.
102. Considering the risks, Dr G’s evidence was that there are short and long
term risks of traditional vaccination. Dr G stated that the short term

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 23

 risks of traditional vaccination are rare, but include brain damage and
death, and that when Japan increased the minimum age of vaccination
from three to 24 months there was a drop in compensation claims for
harm as a result of vaccination. I suggested that this may simply have
been due to the twenty-one month lag in which children were not being
vaccinated, and thus an overall drop in vaccinations. In relation to the
long term risks, Dr G said, both in his affidavit and his oral evidence,
that, as there has been no study in an orthodox medical journal, to his
knowledge, which looked at totally vaccinated and totally unvaccinated
children in an age appropriate way, and taking into account the
“complete health” of the children (including intellectual, emotional and
physical factors), it cannot be scientifically said that vaccination is
completely safe in the long term. Dr G also did not point to any such
long-term trials considering the “full health” of children who received
homeopathic vaccinations in order to demonstrate the safety of HP. Dr
J, in his evidence, noted that the most authoritative scientific study
would be to immunise half the population and then monitor both the
immunised and non immunised groups over an extended period,
however that such a study would not be possible because, given the
effectiveness of traditional immunisation, it would not be ethical to
withhold traditional vaccinations from half the population.
103. Dr G further cited studies which he alleged indicate the long term risks
of vaccination: a study by French physician Michel Odent whose
research on the effects of breast feeding also revealed, according to Dr
G, an increase in rates of asthma in children vaccinated against
whooping cough; Dr G’s own study conducted for his PhD in which he
looked at fully vaccinated, HP vaccinated, unvaccinated, and
‘constitutionally protected’ (through the promotion of general health to
protect from infectious diseases) children and found higher rates of
allergies in traditionally vaccinated children (although it is, in my
opinion, of note that Dr G only accepted as suffering allergies those
children who were diagnosed by an orthodox GP, and in my mind there
is some doubt as to whether parents who do not vaccinate their children,
or who vaccinate them homeopathically, would be likely to take their
child to a traditional GP for allergy diagnosis. I suggest they may be
more likely to self treat, or to attend on a homeopathic practitioner,
which would mean that their allergies were not accounted for in Dr G’s
study); and a comparison of about 10,0000 children which revealed
higher levels of asthma, eczema, ear hearing conditions, hay fever and
sinusitis in vaccinated as opposed to unvaccinated children.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 24

104. Regarding the safety of homeopathic immunisation, Dr J, in his
affidavit, wrote that unlike “potentially toxic” traditional immunisation,
homeopathic immunisation:
…is not potentially toxic due to the method of remedy preparation
which removes any potentially toxic materials (noting that many
promoters of pharmaceutical medicine say HP cannot work because
“nothing is there” – so “nothing” obviously cannot be toxic)
105. This statement does not clarify how potentially toxic materials are
identified and eliminated from homeopathic remedies but not from
traditional remedies, except for suggesting that there is no toxicity to
homeopathic remedies because “nothing is there” which statement
seems to rely on circular logic, as if HP remedies do contain “nothing”
then their efficacy is indeed called into question. If on the other hand
they do contain “something” then there is a possibility that that
“something” may be toxic, and it is not made clear how this potential
toxicity is safeguarded against or removed.
106. Dr G further stated that there “is no disagreement that [HP] is less
potentially toxic both in the short term and the long term” than
traditional vaccination. This statement flies in the face of Dr J’s
evidence that “numerous scientific studies attests to the safety and
effectiveness of our current traditional vaccination program,” and also to
the evidence in the appendix to Dr J’s report, Homeopathy and
Vaccination in which it is explicitly stated that “the safety and
effectiveness of homeopathic preparations …is unknown,” and further,
under the heading Which is safer, homoeopathic preparations or
conventional medicine for immunising my child?:
Conventional medicines such as vaccines are thoroughly
scrutinised, tested, evaluated and followed up for their safety and
effectiveness. Homeopathic preparations do not undergo the same
level of attention. Many homeopathic preparations have not been
subjected to testing or approval through government regulatory
bodies, such as the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration or
the United States Food and Drug Administration, which is standard
practice for conventional vaccines.
107. Dr G acknowledged in his affidavit that both the British Homeopathic
Association and Australian Register of Homeopaths state that they
support vaccination in the absence of medical contraindications. He
noted also that the British Faculty state that HP is of value if there are
medical contraindications. Dr G went on to state that, as discussed in
one of his books, there was “some history of pressure put on the
Association by vaccine supporters,” seeming to suggest that the British
Homeopathic Association does not in fact condone traditional

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 25

 vaccination despite its public statements to that effect. In his oral
evidence Dr G further described that the British Homeopathic
Association had made a statement in apparent support of traditional
vaccination because they were put under pressure from the British
Medical Faculty, which was withdrawing certain medications unless
statements were made supporting vaccination. Dr G explained that he
had found out about this through his lawyer, who approached the British
Medical Faculty to gain information for Dr G in relation to a defamation
suit which he brought against Channel 9.
108. Dr G then went on to state in his affidavit that:
either way it is clear that many homeopaths would regard the
practice of injecting toxic materials into healthy infants as being
“medically contraindicated”, and thus the statements are heavily
qualified.
109. Dr G reiterated this point in his oral evidence. By this statement it
appears that Dr G is implying that:
• Traditional vaccinations involve injecting toxic materials
into healthy infants
• Most traditional vaccinations on healthy infants are thus
‘medically contraindicated’
• The British Homeopathic Association and Australian
Register of Homeopaths would thus not support the
majority of traditional vaccinations.
110. This conclusion contradicts the clear meaning of the position articulated
by the British Homeopathic Association and the Australian Register of
Homeopaths, which position is the support of traditional immunisation
in all cases except those, impliedly exceptional cases, which are
medically contraindicated. If vaccination in the traditional way was
considered to be medically contraindicated because of the very contents
and method of delivery of such vaccination, then there could be no case
where traditional vaccination is not contraindicated. In my opinion this
interpretation would require me to torture the language and is, frankly,
duplicitous. Dr G also suggested in his oral evidence that this is an
instance of homeopaths not wishing to seem to be rabid anti-vaccinists.
It seems to me that the position of the British Homeopathic Association
and Australian Register of Homeopaths goes further than that, and is in
fact a statement in explicit support traditional vaccination.
111. Dr G concluded in his affidavit that there are “minor potential benefits”
benefits to the child T of conventional vaccination but that the potential
risks were “potentially significant” and that it “is unnecessary to take

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 26

 any risks when the potential benefit is so marginal.” Dr G thus
recommended in his affidavit that:
parents should be free to choose either vaccination or HP as they
prefer based on factual advice from both experienced orthodox and
homeopathic practitioners
which recommendation is of some limited use in this case where the
parents fundamentally disagree on which form of immunisation to use
for the child T.
112. In his oral evidence Dr G also referred to his research and work in
treating children who are “vaccine damaged,” that is, harmed by
traditional vaccination. Dr G argued that the success of his homeopathic
preparations of traditional vaccines in treating the children demonstrated
that the cause of the illness had to have been the initial vaccination.
When asked whether such procedures could be used for the child
subsequent to her being traditionally vaccinated, Dr G said that in some
cases vaccine damage is not reversible, and that for a child not
presenting with any symptoms, constitutional treatment (whereby the
“constitutional type” of the child is identified and remedies are provided
to improve their “vitality”) would be preferable. Dr G also suggested
that high doses of vitamin C prior to and following the injections may
reduce the risk of “toxic shock” to the child.
113. Dr G also raised in his oral evidence that his own child had been vaccine
damaged. When I asked Dr G about this, he referred to the time when
he was still “a nice little accountant” living interstate, and that his
“perfectly healthy” daughter had become progressively ill (weight loss,
constipation, listlessness) after a series of three vaccinations
commencing at four or five months of age. He described that she
developed a bowel obstruction after the third injection, which medical
doctors at a Hospital refused to relieve, and so he was forced to relieve
the obstruction himself. Dr G said that shortly after that he moved to
Queensland and had to leave his daughter with a friend for treatment.
He said that it took two years for his daughter to regain weight and
vitality and that this was very distressing. Dr G’s evidence was that
when he now compares his vaccinated and unvaccinated children he
notes that the unvaccinated children are in better psychological health
than those vaccinated traditionally. He did not suggest that there were
any further physical ramifications for his vaccination damaged daughter.
Dr G said that this experience made him realise that he couldn’t rely on
orthodox medical advice and had to do his own research, which led to
his career change to homeopathy.
114. To the extent to which Dr G’s evidence conflicts with Dr J’s evidence,
principally the efficacy of HP, I prefer Dr J’s evidence.

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 27

CONCLUSION
115. The question which I must determine is whether it is in the child’s best
interests to be traditionally vaccinated or to continue with the program
initiated by the mother. For that parenting issue, some considerations in
s 60CC(3) are relevant. The child’s best interests will be the paramount
but not the only consideration. To the extent that the mother seeks an
injunction in aid of a finding in her favour, jurisdiction derives from s
68B and an injunction may be granted if “it appears to the court to be
just and equitable to do so”.
116. From a consideration of all of the evidence, and in particular the
evidence of Dr G and Dr J, it appears to me that the efficacy of
homoeopathic vaccines in preventing infectious diseases has not been
adequately scientifically demonstrated. Dr J’s evidence is that there is
as yet not enough evidence that HP vaccines work. I accept that
evidence as being accurate.
117. I note that the child is already eight years old, and thus the likelihood of
her contracting one of the diseases against which she could be
vaccinated is reduced. I note also that many of the diseases against
which the child could be immunised are not widespread in the
Australian community.
118. Nevertheless, the likelihood of the child being exposed to infectious
diseases for which traditional immunisations are available is not zero.
This is particularly so if, in the future, she travels overseas to countries
where some of these diseases are more prevalent in the community.
119. I accept that both forms of immunisation carry risks, but that the risks of
both forms of immunisation are relatively low.
120. In these circumstances, I find that not immunising the child by way of
conventional immunisation would expose her to a risk of harm through
infection with a preventable disease which risk is unacceptable in the
context of traditional immunisation practices. The risk of harm as a
result of traditional vaccination is not so high as to outweigh the risk of
infection.
121. I do not regard the child’s views as relevant to the issue of
immunisation. She lacks the maturity and understanding to appreciate
the matters now under consideration.
122. I have regard to the different roles which each parent has in the child’s
life. I have regard to the relationship between the child and the other
children in the father’s household and the stepmother. Having regard to
the benefits and negligible risks associated with traditional
immunisation, I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 28

 the child to be ostracised from that household because she is not
immunised. It is not determinative but is a matter to which I have
regard.
123. I have already been critical of the extent to which each parent has lost
sight of the emotional needs and wellbeing of the child and have, up to
the date of the trial, failed to heed the warning of Mr H delivered in
2010 that:
The prognosis for [the child’s] ongoing psychological and
emotional health is poor if the parties fail to reach a rapprochement
and come to terms with the need for a more cooperative and
authentic approach to the joint parenting of [the child].

124. The father’s behaviour in having the child immunised in secret reflects
very poorly on his attitude to the responsibilities of parenthood. I reject
his position that “the end justifies the means”. I am not critical of the
mother. She has openly followed a program of homeopathic
immunisation with the full knowledge of the father and without
subterfuge. She genuinely embraces it as being in the child’s best
interests. I do not conclude that homeopathic immunisation is best for
the child or that it is a realistic and effective alternative to traditional
immunisation. However, that does not detract from my assessment of the
mother’s attitude to the discharge of her parental responsibilities as
being genuine and, save for the dreadful and ongoing parental conflict,
beneficial to the child.
125. I will make an order that the child be vaccinated traditionally according
to a schedule of catch-up vaccines to be prepared by Dr J. The father
will be responsible for obtaining the schedule and the mother must be
provided with an opportunity to verify it prior to the course of
immunisations being commenced.
126. It follows that I will not grant the mother’s application for injunctive
relief.
127. Regarding the manner in which the traditional vaccination schedule is to
be carried out, I am not convinced on the mother’s evidence that she is
capable of presenting the traditional vaccination to the child as being a
“good thing”. I am, on the other hand, confident that the father and Mrs
Kingsford believe that traditional immunisation would be “good” for the
child and would be able to present it to her in that light. In those
circumstances, I propose that the father and his wife, Mrs Kingsford be
responsible for taking the child to her immunisation appointments.
128. The evidence regarding the child’s familiarity with Dr O is persuasive,
and I propose to order that he carry out the vaccinations in accordance

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 29

 with the schedule prepared by Dr J. I note also that Dr O offers
vaccination free of charge.
129. I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests for Dr O to administer
the immunisations. This is not a convenient locale for the father or his
wife. However, against that inconvenience I weigh the fact that the child
and mother know and trust their doctor and that the mother will be able
to discuss the program with him at her expense and convenience to
what, I am satisfied, will be an enhanced degree of comfort to herself
and the child.
130. I do not consider that it is in the child’s best interests to receive single
dose immunisations. Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is one
example of combined dose immunisations. Dr J opined that the
combined dose is safe and appropriate and I accept that is the case. I
acknowledge the mother’s concerns but prefer that the child be
immunised by as few injections as children in the mainstream receive.
Of course, there will be extra immunisations administered by way of
“catch up”. However I am not in favour of the mother’s early
preference for single dose immunisation.
131. Any expense for the immunisations can be borne by the father. As noted
above, I was informed that Dr O offers vaccination free of charge.
However, if an expense does arise it should be borne by the father as I
take into account that the mother has already undertaken the arduous
task of the homeopathic course.
132. For the above reasons, I make the orders set out at the beginning of
these reasons.

I certify that the preceding one-hundred-and-thirty-two (132) paragraphs

are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice
Bennett delivered on 19 October 2012.

Associate:

Date: 19 October 2012

FamCA Coversheet and Orders Page 30