When “child protection” becomes state control — a North London mother loses her right to decide what goes into her baby’s body.
LIONESS OF JUDAH MINISTRY
In a chilling High Court decision, an Islington mother has been overruled by the state, her 8-month-old daughter will be vaccinated without her consent.
The ruling, justified under “child welfare,” has ignited debate over parental rights, medical freedom, and the expanding power of local authorities over family life in Britain.
By Niamh Harris November 5, 2025
A north London council has won a High Court battle to vaccinate an eight month old baby girl against her mother’s wishes..
Islington Council faced a legal challenge by one of its residents after it arranged for her daughter to receive routine vaccinations while the child was in its care.
The mother had refused to allow her child receive the jab because she believes that vaccinations raise the chances of autism.
However, at court the judge, Mr Justice McDonald decided that not vaccinating the baby would leave her at risk of childhood disease “at a very young age when she remains vulnerable,” and ruled in favor of the local authority.
BBC reports: The baby, known only as P, has been under the north London council’s guardianship since February due to concerns that her mother could not meet her or her older siblings’ basic care needs.
In July, the council proposed the infant stay with her mother at the family home while under its supervision, until it was decided whether or not she would permanently be taken out of her mother’s care.
During this time the mother refused to have her daughter vaccinated.
After the council moved ahead with the appointment out of concern for the child’s welfare, Ms S took the local authority to the High Court to try to stop it.
‘All those chemicals’
The Local Democracy Reporting Service reports that the mother told the court she was convinced of the links between vaccines and autism or ADHD, and believed ethnic minority children were adversely affected by the jabs.
She also said she had seen proof online that 4,500 children had died from preventable diseases and deemed this a low risk when compared to the country’s large child population.
At the High Court hearing Mr Justice McDonald “gently pressed” the mother that there were no scientific studies proving the connection between autism and vaccinations.
But Ms S maintained it was still her right to decide, arguing that her daughter was “too tiny to be pumped with vaccinations with all those chemicals”.
She added that she might consider letting her child receive the jabs if she were older.
The Children Act 1989 gives local authorities the power to arrange for children in care to be vaccinated even if their parents object.
While there is no law that says children must be vaccinated, the NHS strongly urges parents to follow its routine schedule of vaccinations for babies under one year of age, starting at eight weeks, to protect against diseases like measles, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply