Mother of girl in state care launches Supreme Court action against attempts to administer Covid-19 vaccine to her child

A legal challenge by a mother of a girl in state care, who was fighting attempts to give her child the Covid vaccination, has come to an abrupt halt.

The mother of a girl in state care who launched legal action against the Child Protection Department for trying to vaccinate her child has conceded defeat, withdrawing her lawsuit.

The case had the potential to become another challenge to the efficacy and legality of Covid-19 vaccines before the state’s highest court.

The young girl, known in court documents only as DDL, is in the care of the Child Protection Department after being removed from the custody of her biological parents.

In January, the mother began legal action in the Supreme Court to prevent the department from administering the Covid-19 vaccine to the child.

She claimed in her application for an injunction that the department had no legal power to administer the vaccine, that the decision should not have been made without her approval and there was “insufficient evidence to support” the efficacy of the vaccine.

The mother was represented in the Supreme Court proceedings by Adam Richards, a member of AFLW player Deni Varnhagen’s legal team in her challenge against Covid-19 mandates.

During the injunction hearing in January, Mr Richards said he had also been approached by other parents who shared his client’s views and said the matter was of “public importance”.

Nurse and AFLW player Deni Varnhagen leaves the Supreme Court. Photo: Brenton Edwards

Supreme Court Justice Judy Hughes dismissed the mother’s injunction application, noting there were other avenues for review and appeal before resorting to the state’s highest court.

However, in her reasons for the decision, published only last week, Justice Hughes noted the matter had since been heard in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and was back before the Supreme Court on appeal.

The Child Protection Department confirmed the case had now been withdrawn and the child vaccinated.

Lawyer Adam Richards in 2017.

During the January hearing, counsel from the Crown Solicitor, acting for the department, argued that legislation had created the power to administer the vaccine.

The Children and Young People (Safety) Act provides the power for the chief executive of the department to “make arrangements for the professional examination, assessment or treatment” of a child in care.

However, Mr Richards argued “treatment” did not include vaccinating a child.

The department also contended the mother had no rights under the legislation to challenge the decision.

Finally, it argued the move to vaccinate was not legally unreasonable and the evidence the mother intended to present of any issues with the vaccine would not be admissible.

The mother was ordered to pay the government’s costs for the January legal proceedings.