The ruling emphasizes the child’s autonomy in health decisions amid parental disagreement.
SINGAPORE: A recent court ruling has favored a father who wishes to vaccinate his 16-year-old daughter against COVID-19, despite opposition from his unvaccinated ex-wife. However, the father has been ordered to pay S$2,000 in court costs to his ex-wife, as he allowed their daughter to receive her first COVID-19 vaccination while legal proceedings were still underway.
In a judgment disclosed by CNA on Tuesday (April 26), District Judge Kenneth Yap emphasized the importance of the child’s desire to be vaccinated, stating she had made her decision in a “well-informed and reasoned manner.” He also noted the significant implications of vaccination-differentiated measures for unvaccinated individuals.
The father, a 49-year-old British citizen and Singapore permanent resident, and the mother, a 53-year-old Singaporean, share joint custody of their daughter. After their marriage in 2003 and the birth of their daughter in 2005, they divorced in 2015. The father has since remarried.
The Father’s Position
According to the father, there had been no issues regarding their daughter’s care arrangements until the matter of her COVID-19 vaccination arose. He filed an application in the Family Justice Courts in October, seeking permission for his daughter to receive the vaccine with her consent.
The father argued that vaccinating his daughter was in her best interest, particularly in light of the government’s shift towards coexisting with the virus and the rising number of COVID-19 cases in Singapore at that time. He presented evidence from various news articles and advisories from government bodies asserting the vaccine’s safety for adolescents.
His daughter expressed a desire to be vaccinated, citing two reasons: to protect herself from severe illness and to be able to socialize with friends and visit her grandparents abroad. The court also noted that she was medically fit to receive the vaccine.
The Mother’s Argument
The mother contended that both parents’ consent was necessary for their daughter’s vaccination since she is a minor. She referenced possible adverse effects of the vaccine and argued that the risks outweighed the potential benefits, asserting that her daughter did not need to be vaccinated.
Additionally, she expressed concerns that her daughter was under pressure to be vaccinated for leisure travel with her father and his family. The mother, who has opted not to vaccinate herself, has been waiting for more information before deciding on the vaccine’s safety.
Vaccination Without Consent
Despite the ongoing court proceedings, the girl received her first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on November 5 without her mother’s knowledge. The father had accompanied her and provided consent. Following the vaccination, the girl experienced mild symptoms, including a headache and fever, but tested negative for COVID-19.
The court had previously issued an order preventing either parent from allowing the child to receive her second dose until the case was resolved.
The Judge’s Ruling
In his December judgment, Judge Yap acknowledged the contentious nature of the COVID-19 vaccination debate. He recognized the differing views on vaccination and the unique challenges faced by families amid the pandemic.
He emphasized that the child’s maturity and understanding of the vaccine’s risks and benefits warranted consideration. The judge noted the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on children’s social and developmental needs, emphasizing that the child’s desire to participate in normal activities was legitimate.
Ultimately, Judge Yap expressed hope for both parents to cooperate moving forward. The mother has indicated that she does not plan to appeal the ruling, while the father acknowledged his breach of the custody agreement by permitting the vaccination without prior consent.
