Family Law Hub

An NHS Foundation Trust v T [2016] EWHC 2980 (Fam)

An order was made allowing the hospital to administer a form of treatment which involved the child receiving blood products, despite the absence of the consent of the parents who were Jehovah's Witnesses.

  • Case No: FD16P00641

    Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2980 (Fam)



    Royal Courts of Justice

    Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

    Date: 18 November 2016



    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    - and -

    (1) MRS T

    (2) MR T (Respondents)

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Claire Watson (instructed by Capsticks LLP) for the Applicant

    The Respondents did not attend and were not represented

    Hearing date: 18 November 2016

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



    1. This is an application in relation to a 2-year-old boy known as Child T. Unfortunately, he suffers from a low blood platelet count, which has led his treating doctors to consider that he may have a medical condition affecting his production of bone marrow. This is causing problems which have led him to be the subject of investigation and hospital treatment from time to time.

    2. I have read reports from the Consultant Paediatric Haematologist who is responsible for T's treatment. He indicates that, at the present time and from time to time in the future, T is going to need to have blood products administered to him in order to prevent a very serious deterioration in his health.

    3. T's parents are fully committed to their son and to achieving the best outcome for him. But the particular form of treatment (by the administration of blood products) causes them problems because they belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith. They have not attended court but have sent letters which fully explain the position they find themselves in. They are understandably unable to consent to what is being proposed but they do not oppose it and leave the decision to the Court. They emphasise that they would want forms of treatment other than the administration of blood products to be considered in any case in which they might be equally effective, and that is also the position of the Hospital Trust bringing the application.

    4. I should mention that T himself is not legally represented and in the circumstances of the case I do not consider that to be necessary. Further, the Hospital Trust making the application had paperwork in order in case a reporting restriction order was needed but, having heard from Mr Farmer of the Press Association, I am satisfied that none is needed as there is no likelihood of this case attracting significant media attention. At all events this hearing has taken place in private and a judgment which does not name the child or the hospital will be recorded on the BAILII website in due course.

    5. I am in no doubt at all, having read the medical evidence and having considered the views of T's parents, that it is overwhelmingly in T's best interests for him to be able to receive this treatment in order for his health to be supported and that the inability of the hospital to give him this treatment could lead to very serious and possibly even fatal consequences as time went on. I am satisfied that it is necessary for the Court to make the decision instead of the parents.

    6. I will therefore approve the Order which has been placed before the Court which provides that, notwithstanding the absence of parental consent, it is lawful and in T's best interests that he receives blood or blood products should the same be clinically indicated in the opinion of the treating doctors. The Order will record that such treatment will only be given after consultation with the parents and that blood products or blood will only be used if there is no clinically appropriate alternative.

    7. The Order will be made under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and not under section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

    8. I make the procedural orders allowing the Hospital Trust permission to bring this application.

    9. That is my judgment.

Judgment, published: 22/11/2016


Published: 22/11/2016


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item