Against the will of the mother: child in the care of a foster family may be vaccinated

class=”sc-29f61514-0 icZBHN”>

A four-year-old who has been placed in a foster family practically from birth, receives the classic basic vaccinations by order of child and adult protection (Kesb), although his mother has spoken out against this. The Federal Supreme Court ruled and rejected the woman’s complaint.

In a ruling published on Tuesday, the Federal Supreme Court states that the boy will remain with the foster family indefinitely. The family takes care of his care, while the mother hardly interferes with the practical daily life of her son. This is accompanied by a visitation right of two times two hours per week.

authority bears the risk

By depriving the woman of her parental right of residence and assuming legal responsibility for care, the Kesb said it was mainly the government that was at risk. For example, if the child contracts a disease against which it has not been vaccinated.

Particularly when it comes to the responsibility for protecting the health of the child, an authority cannot take the same risks as parents with regard to typical childhood illnesses. The latter may waive the basic vaccinations for their child who lives with them in the exercise of parental authority.

Vaccination Yes – but not against everything

The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that the risks of illness did not directly lead to the finding that the well-being of the child was at risk and therefore to the imposition of a measure.

In the present case, the mother refused to have her child vaccinated according to the Swiss vaccination plan. Finally, at the request of the children’s lawyer, she agreed to the triple vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. However, she continued to refuse vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella and polio.

Child protection subsequently expanded the area of ​​responsibility of the deputy. She instructed the foster family to have the classic vaccinations carried out. The mother appealed this decision to the Federal Supreme Court. (Judgment 5A_310/2023 of 6 July 2023) (SDA/shq)

Source:Blick