Dad’s bid to prevent children’s HPV vaccinations rejected by B.C. court

A vaccine-fearing father has been ordered not to discuss the HPV vaccine – or even the human papillomavirus itself – with his children after losing a battle against their mother in B.C. Supreme Court.

The divorced parents were at odds over vaccinating their eight-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter against HPV when the father attempted to “indoctrinate” the children into his way of thinking, Justice Catherine Murray wrote in a decision published online this week.

The father did so by showing the kids frightening internet videos and warning them that receiving the vaccine would put their lives in jeopardy, Murray said.

“I accept the advice of the health authorities in Canada, who are entrusted with protecting public health, that it is in the best interests of the children to get the HPV vaccination,” Murray wrote in her June 24 decision.

“I am concerned about (the father) showing the children disturbing videos and telling them that the vaccine will kill them.”

Father initiated legal battle

The court heard the parents divorced in December 2022, then entered into a consent order under the province’s Family Law Act agreeing to “consult each other about any important decisions” regarding their children.

Last fall, they were notified by their daughter’s school that her class would be vaccinated against HPV – a sexually transmitted infection known to cause several kinds of cancer – but the father refused to sign the consent form.

In text messages to his ex-wife, he questioned whether the protection offered by the vaccine was “going to even work,” and suggested the vaccine “causes more harm than good.”

Murray noted that the father supported his position by sending the children’s mother “TikTok videos and articles,” the contents of which were not presented in court.

“We are here to protect the kids not put them in any kind of harms way,” the father wrote. “There’s a lot of pressure on parents to take these vaccines … it’s all about money and commissions. It isn’t about health.”

But the mother was not convinced by the father’s opinion – which flies in the face of the advice the family received from their doctor, who assured them there is no medical reason not to vaccinate the children.

The father ultimately decided to petition the court, as allowed under the Family Law Act, for an order preventing his wife from vaccinating their son and daughter for at least two years.

Judge finds dad’s evidence lacking

Murray weighed evidence from both parties, but ultimately found the health publications presented by the mother – which she summarized, in part, as establishing that “more than 200 million doses of the vaccine have been given safely worldwide” – more compelling.

The mother’s materials came from a range of sources, including the Canadian Cancer Society, Fraser Health, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Immunize B.C.

The publications note that the vaccine protects against seven types of HPV, which account for up to 90 per cent of cervical cancers and anal cancers in women and girls, and 84 per cent of anal cancers in men and boys.

“The HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Murray wrote while summarizing some of the material.

“Since the vaccine has been in use in the United States, infections with HPV types that cause most HPV cancers and genital warts have dropped 88 per cent among teenage girls and 81 per cent among young adult women.”

By comparison, the father provided scant evidence to support his concerns.

He presented an affidavit from a Connecticut doctor – who graduated from medical school in China 68 years ago – arguing the extremely rare risks associated with receiving the vaccine outweigh the benefits, an opinion he based in part on the high survival rate for cervical cancer.

“This is not a reason,” Murray wrote in her assessment of the evidence. “The aim of the vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer altogether.”

The father also cited a lawsuit from a California woman who blames the HPV vaccine for causing debilitating injuries in her son. That lawsuit remains before the courts, and the father argued his family should wait to see how it is resolved before vaccinating their own children.

The judge disagreed, noting that “lawsuits are not medical information.”

Mom given sole discretion

The mother told the court she hoped to get their daughter vaccinated before she turns 12 in early July, as recommended by health officials across the country, but that the child found the videos her father showed her “very scary.”

“(The mother) watched the videos and attests that they were inappropriate for children, and that they mentioned death and suicide,” Murray wrote.

Based on the reliability of each party’s evidence, the judge dismissed the father’s application and instead ordered that he avoid the topic of HPV and HPV vaccination around either of his children.

Murray instead granted sole discretion over the matter of HPV vaccines to the mother.

Given the alarming material the children had been exposed to, the judge also said the mother may “take such other steps that she deems necessary to prepare the children physically and/or emotionally” for vaccination.

Murray ordered the father not to discuss the court proceedings with his children either, and ordered both parents not to speak negatively about one another – on the basis of their HPV vaccine disagreement or anything else – in front of their kids.