A High Court judge has ruled that Islington Council in North London, United Kingdom may proceed with routine childhood vaccinations for an eight-month-old baby girl despite the strong objections of her mother, who argued the vaccines posed health risk for her child. The child, referred to in court documents only as P, has been under the guardianship of the North London council since February 2025 due to concerns that her mother, Ms. S, could not adequately meet her or her older siblings’ basic care needs.1
Under a temporary care arrangement established in July 2025, P was permitted to stay with her mother at home while the council assessed whether she should eventually return to full parental care or be permanently placed in alternate accommodation. During this supervised period, Ms. S refused consent for her daughter to receive routine infant vaccinations, which the National Health Service (NHS), the publicly funded health care system in the U.K., recommends beginning at eight weeks of age for diseases such as measles, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.2
Court Rejects Mother’s Claims of Vaccine Risk
During the hearing, Ms. S told the court she believed vaccines were linked to autism or ADHD and that children from ethnic minority backgrounds were particularly at risk from chemicals in the vaccines.3 She also indicated she had learned online that 4,500 children had died from preventable diseases, which she considered a comparatively low risk given the size of the national child population. She believed that the decision should remain hers as the child’s mother, saying her daughter was “too tiny to be pumped with vaccinations with all those chemicals.”4
The judge, Justice McDonald, examined these assertions and expressed his opinion that scientific research does not support a causal link between routine childhood vaccinations and developmental conditions such as autism. He stated that the mother’s understanding appeared to rely on “misinformation” rather than medical evidence. The judge further stated that delaying standard vaccinations would expose P to diseases “at a very young age when she remains vulnerable,” concluding that vaccination was in the child’s best interests.5
The ruling emphasized that while vaccination is not mandatory in the U.K and parents generally hold decision-making authority, the Children Act of 1989 permits local authorities responsible for children in care to authorize medical treatment when necessary to safeguard a child’s health. In this case, the court held that the Council acted within its legal powers and responsibilities to protect the infant.6
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:1 Steen J. Council to vaccinate child in care after court win. BBC Nov. 4, 2025.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Little S. Labour council allowed to vaccinate eight-month-old baby against mother’s wishes. GB News Nov. 6, 2025.
5 Steen J. Council to vaccinate child in care after court win. BBC Nov. 4, 2025.
6 Little S. Labour council allowed to vaccinate eight-month-old baby against mother’s wishes. GB News Nov. 6, 2025.
10 Responses
Disgusting. If that baby suffers any harm, I hope the mother sues them into oblivion. They should at least wait until they decide if the mother will retain her parental rights before deciding that they should treat her medically for diseases the baby doesn’t even have. This is such an overreach.
Upon reading your article, I noticed that there are supposed to be 6 foot notes but I do not see any of them. Why is that? Footnotes typically indicate the source of the statement being made but I do not see any footnotes.
Click on the references link at the bottom of the article
Use this link at the bottom of the article to access footnotes.
“Click here to view References:”
This is nothing short of medical kidnapping.
How is this legal? Moral? Scientific?
Justice McDonald ought to be held personally responsible for all health care costs related to the poisoning of this infant, and if the infant is seriously harmed, the judge should be criminally charged.
They tried doing this when I was fostering here in the US. Luckily the birth-mother got me as a foster parent, retained her parental rights, and it didn’t happen. If this mother still has her parental rights this is CRIMINAL. If not, it’s at the very least wrong, but unfortunately not against the law. The UK has fallen…
This evil entity has been vaccinating and killing babies for over 200 years.
Judge McDonald is a criminal and should be in jail, pumped full of vaccines he allows to be injected in an innocent baby. How can he NOT be aware that vaccines are poison, that medical treatments can not be forced on anybody, certainly not on a baby, certainly not on a person who is not on the verge of dying, with a healthy baby being exactly the opposite of that last one.
Anybody enforcing any law or mandate treading on bodily autonomy is a criminal and should be dealt with as such. WHERE is the ‘first do no harm’ principle here ???? Any government is supposed to and bound by law and oath, to represent the people and act in the best interest of the people, of the individual. If they ‘forget’ that, they should be punished severely. How can it be that there are no particularly severe punishments for those that do what no other human or animal does, i.e. harming a baby or child?
The mother is a hero, she’s a REAL mother. Harm a child intentionally -> death penalty, as those demons are 100% unredeemable, everybody knows it.
UNITE against your own ‘representatives’.
If you want the state to be the savior of mankind, you have to abandon God’s law, and you have to destroy the family. Between the preaching of a dispensational, free will, make it up as you go, and wait on a rapture ti fix everything false gospel, and feminism convincing women that they need to get out of the house and get a career or they are second rate and a slave to their husbands, the state worshippers have done a great job of making the law of God irrelevant and they have destroyed the family.
Unless the church in this country, and countries around the world, get back to the grace-covenant law and Word of God, and mothers want to stay home with their children to teach them the law of God- Deuteronomy 6, the state and it’s worshippers are going to take complete control over our lives, and tell us that they are looking out for us.
This is criminal what the UK can do to parents and children! So sad when you are stuck in a country that has these laws…if you can call them that! Shame on that judge!