FD2500652 - [2025] EWHC 2782 (Fam)

I have summarised the written evidence above. It is not necessary for me to detail the written evidence. None of the parties disputed the underlying medical evidence which underpins the Applicant’s case for the relief sought.

I have carefully read the witness statements from the two treating neonatologists. I have read the two witness statements from the paediatric neurologist. I have carefully considered the two second opinion doctors’ reports which agreed with the diagnosis (or lack of) prognosis and treatment plan to move to palliation. I have also read the CEAG request and reply. All of this written evidence supports the bleak prognosis. The evidence supports the burdens of treatment and the likelihood that the multiple seizures are painful and are causing discomfort to Child Q. To add to his burdens and pain is the impact of the frequent suctioning given he cannot swallow himself. This is carried out regularly and likely causes discomfort. He has been having so many blood tests, he has required blood transfusions. He has a line which is at high risk of infection.

I heard oral evidence from one treating neurologist and one treating neonatologist. They told me that sodium valproate was administered, as the fourth anti-seizure drug on 21 October 2025. This has helped to reduce the frequency and the severity of the Child Q’s seizures, however, they still occurred and they likely remained painful. Their evidence was that the improvement this week was a ‘honeymoon’ effect and would not last. They had seen this with earlier prescribed medications. I was also told that the treatment remained very risky because the venous line might soon fail and there could be a delay in re-inserting a line or there might be a need for sub-cutaneous administration of anti-seizure administration. This all placed Child Q at risk of pain which was difficult to control. The slight (and likely temporary) change in seizure pain management did not alter the best interests analysis of any of the clinicians. When asked for more time to permit the parents to spend more time with Baby Q before extubation, the witness evidence was that such a period could only be a very short one as any longer delay would be unethical given the extent of Child Q’s suffering.

The mother filed a moving witness statement. Neither she nor her husband (understandably) wished to give oral evidence. Her written evidence told me the parents are devout ‘Protestant Christians.’ She is the mother to two older siblings. She has a very close knit family. She spends around five to six hours each day with her son. She notes he is fed milk through a nasal tube and has a central line in his neck. Her evidence is that Child Q requires frequent suctioning because he cannot swallow. He does not respond much to the world around him. He might react to bright lights or loud noises. She explains that he has a lot of seizures and the ventilator cannot get enough air into his lungs because of his stiff muscles and she thinks this may cause him pain. She noted the seizures had been better since 21 October 2025. She states she cannot fault the care the nurses and doctors have given Child Q and she has an excellent relationship with them.

She states that whilst she and her husband agree with the doctors about Child Q’s condition and what this means for his future (the prognosis) her faith does not permit her to agree with the plan to cease mechanical ventilation. “It would be like we are agreeing to kill him.” She states: “We believe that if God wants to take [Child Q’s] life, God will take it, without me interfering.” She hopes for a miracle and believes in miracles. She notes a miracle took place when she was hospitalised in intensive care some years ago.