BGH judgment Separate father enforces vaccinations of the child by court decision

If both custodial parents disagree on whether their child should be vaccinated, the recommendations of the Standing Vaccination Commission (STIKO) count in case of doubt. Family courts may hereby grant the sole custody of the parent who will base his vaccination wishes on these recommendations, as the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe ruled in a resolution published on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 (Ref .: XII ZB 157/16). These recommendations are recognized as a medical standard and therefore best meet the best interests of the child.

In the dispute is about the vaccinations for a four-year-old girl in Thuringia. The parents have separated, but are both custodial. The daughter lives mostly with the mother. According to the law, this can therefore decide "in matters of daily life" alone. For questions of "considerable importance", however, the consent of both parents is necessary.

(Image: Richard Villalon / fotolia.com)

Here, the father wants to vaccinate the child according to the STIKO recommendations. The mother, on the other hand, says the risk of vaccine damage is more severe and largely declines the vaccines. The recommendations resulted from an "ominous lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession".

At the request of the father, the District Court of Erfurt and the Higher Regional Court of Jena have granted him sole custody of the vaccinations recommended by the STIKO. Specifically, it was about the vaccinations against tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, pneumococci, rotaviruses, meningococcal C, measles, mumps and rubella. With its resolution of 3 May 2017, which has now been published in writing, the BGH has now confirmed this.

At first, the judges from Karlsruhe emphasized that this is not a "matter of daily life" but a decision that is particularly important for the child. Most of the time, it only occurs once. Both the goal of vaccinations to prevent infections and the associated risk of vaccine damage "prove the significant importance," said the BGH.

Actually, therefore, both parents are responsible, in case of dispute, the family court must be based on the best interests of the child. That would best meet the STIKO recommendations. These were - as already recognized by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 February 2000, ref .: VI ZR 48/99) - "as a medical standard". Since the father's attitude to these recommendations, the lower courts would have "rightly considered the father as better suited to decide on the implementation of vaccinations of the child." Special circumstances, to refrain from the vaccinations in individual cases, would not exist here.

In 2000, the BGH had already decided that physicians can generally assume that both parents agree with a recommended vaccination, even if only one parent comes to the practice with the child (also judgment of 15 February 2000, Ref .: VI ZR 48/99). mwo / fle