Case No. FD25F00020 - [2025] EWHC 783 (Fam)

Notwithstanding my lack of jurisdiction, and given the urgency, I should say a little about the welfare issues involved. From the information provided to me, the welfare analysis is relatively straightforward. Prof CC’s evidence is clear – there is a risk that the mother has a BBV. The Trust cannot say definitely if this is so, but even if I assess that risk as being small or medium, it is a risk of very significant harm to the baby due to the effects of BBV on a newborn child. There would be almost no impact or risk to the child of checking the blood cord or even the blood of the baby. There will be no psychological or physical risks, but very many downsides if a blood test does not take place and essential treatment cannot be provided, giving the child risks of developing HIV, HBV or syphilis. The magnitude of that risk is set out in submissions and it is drawn from academic literature. At present I am clear this innocuous blood test is essential to the baby when born, to protect the baby from the symptoms of any serious illness.

The best interests analysis incorporates the article 8 rights, which would require me to balance the mother’s rights against that of the baby. However the mother has not put forward a good reason for the tests not to take place. If I have to carry out the balance the rights would come down on the side of the child. However, I am not persuaded I have a jurisdiction to make welfare decisions, even anticipatory declarations. Therefore I will not decide today what is in the best interest of the unborn baby, but will do so when the baby has been born and has a legal personality. It is highly likely my provisional welfare analysis will not evolve from what I have said today, but of course I have reached no concluded view. I encourage PP to reflect carefully on what she has heard and consider consenting to a test and treatment for her baby when born.