FD2500652 - [2025] EWHC 2782 (Fam)

The Applicant submitted in Ms Power’s helpful position statement:

“The applicant recognises that there is a strong presumption in favour of the preservation of life. Baby Q’s life has value and dignity. He is loved by his family who visit him every day. He cannot see but may be able to hear. It is entirely understandable that his parents, who have expressed strong religious faith and who have described personal experience of surviving serious complications in a neonatal intensive care unit, are hoping for a miracle. Tragically, it is submitted that these factors are outweighed by the burdens of continued treatment: in particular, by the frequent epileptic seizures which appear to be painful and distressing for Baby Q and the burdens of intensive care treatment, in conjunction with the very poor prognosis. Adopting the words of MacDonald J at first instance in Fixsler, this is a case “where it is not in the best interests of the child to subject him or her to treatment that will cause increased suffering and produce no commensurate benefit, giving the fullest possible weight to the child's and mankind's desire to survive.” Following the lodestar of Baby Q’s best interests, it is submitted that this is a situation where continued treatment is merely prolonging Baby Q’s suffering, rather than conferring any meaningful benefit upon him, or, in the alternative, that the theoretical benefit of continued existence is outweighed by the burdens and suffering caused by the continuation of treatment.”

At the conclusion of the oral evidence, and after some time to reflect, Mr Hallin thoughtfully articulated the mother’s position with simplicity. Her position is also the position of the father. Mr Hallin submitted:

The Guardian, after careful thought and analysis, supported the Applicant’s case for declarations.