A series of South Australian court judgements has refused bids by parents of children in state care to prevent their offspring getting vaccinated against COVID-19.
A father whose five-year-old daughter is under the guardianship of the state's Department for Child Protection has lost his bids through two different avenues to prevent his child being inoculated against the coronavirus.
In the latest judgement published last week, Supreme Court justices Mark Livesey and Chris Bleby dismissed the man's appeal against a South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) decision to allow his daughter to get vaccinated.
The justices also denied his bid for an injunction against the vaccination going ahead.
Among other things, the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons and who represented himself, claimed the department had "failed to investigate the harmful and damaging" effects of the Pfizer vaccine on the body.
SACAT president Judy Hughes had decided earlier this month that the man "did not create a persuasive case" as to why the department should not vaccinate the child.
Justice Hughes said, in any case, the man did not have any say in the decision since the chief executive of the Department for Child Protection was the child's parent under the law.
Although the department often consulted with parents on matters to do with their children, there was no obligation in this case "because the decision had no effect on the applicant's interests", she said.
Justices Livesey and Bleby said there were no grounds to appeal that judgement.
Judge denies particular interest in child's vaccination
Justice Livesey also refused a call to recuse himself from the case because he had previously ruled against the man's bid for another injunction against the vaccine going ahead in March.
The man had claimed Justice Livesey had a particular interest in making sure his daughter was vaccinated.
Justice Livesey said he could "assure the applicant that I have no such interest".
In the March case, the man had claimed the Supreme Court should allow the injunction under the doctrine of "parens patriae" where the Supreme Court can make medical decisions on behalf of a person who cannot make them for themselves.
Justice Livesey dismissed the application for that injunction, saying the correct path was an appeal to SACAT.
He also said "it had not been demonstrated that vaccination posed any immediate or serious risk to the health of the child that would warrant an injunction".
The child is under guardianship of the Department for Child Protection because the Youth Court decided last year that her mother, who has autism, was "unable to provide the care that the child requires".
The court found the man had had only limited involvement in the child's life and there "cannot be any suggestion" that she be placed into his care.
The man found out he was the father through a DNA test.
Mother also loses bid against jab
A second parent — a mother — also had her bid to prevent her child under the care of the department getting vaccinated refused by the Supreme Court in a separate decision published earlier this month.
In that case, Justice Hughes said the appeal of the department's decision should have been made to SACAT and not the Supreme Court.
It is not clear whether either child has now been vaccinated.
SA Health today reported 11 new deaths of people with COVID-19 as cases are expected to rise with a new subvariant coming in from interstate.
