![FD25P00518 - [2025] EWHC 2247 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png){kind=logo}
The Evidence
The Evidence
Doctor N
Doctor N is a consultant in rehabilitative medicine. She provided helpful witness statements on 20 and 26 August 2025. She has met the mother several times to assess her. More recently the mother has been assessed jointly by Dr N and Dr G as not having capacity to make decisions about Baby J’s treatment, including extubation. Attempts have been made to inform the mother of Baby J’s circumstances. Dr N concludes that the mother is suffering from post-traumatic amnesia (“PTA”). She does not appear to retain information about Baby J. She has a short attention span and needs frequent prompts to focus on the question or task request. I quote some material parts of Dr N’s evidence.
“Dr G told the mother that as she had a heart attack her heart did not function for 40 minutes and blood to Baby J was reduced causing severe brain injury. The mother did not respond. Dr G told the mother that Baby J was very unwell and the likely would not survive. The mother said "Ok I am sorry. Can he like not go somewhere and leave it there." The mother said "I don’t want to be involved in it all." Dr G explained that they were thinking to take the tube out and Baby J might survive. The mother said "Ok. I don’t know what to say. How many kids have I got?" Her partner responded "seven." The mother said "how is it seven? It isn’t my 7th child wait" then the mother tried to name her children. She was able to name two of her children and then kept repeating the first name she had given. She was asked if she could remember the baby's name and she replied "I don’t know his name." The mother then became distracted. I asked her what we had just discussed immediately following the above conversation and she said "I don't know." I asked her if we had been talking about a baby and she said no.”
In relation to a further conversation between the mother and Dr N which took place on 26 August 2025 it is noted: “I attempted to discuss Baby J more and explained that he is not well. I told the mother that she had been admitted with collapse and a heart problem and that she needed a c-section. The mother said "I don’t know. Why is that?" she was distracted when we told her the baby was not well and then a tangential discussion occurred where she was not on topic or responding to discussion regarding the baby, but said "the rest have all been alright." I told her that she was muddled and confused at present and not able to make decisions regarding the baby in my opinion, and asked her if it was ok to speak to her mother and partner regarding her wishes. She gave the impression that this was ok, albeit she did not directly answer the question.”
Dr N recounts another conversation at 13:30 the same day in her updating evidence: “I visited the mother again at 13:30pm today and showed her pictures of Baby J. The mother took the pictures and looked at them. She said "when will he be better". Her friend was present and we explained that we did not think that Baby J would get better and she said "it is so sad." The mother's friend asked her if she would like to see Baby J and she said "maybe". We explained he had a breathing tube in place and the mother said "it is horrible". She didn’t recall being in hospital and said there is not much she can do. She then said "the only thing you could do" and then was unable to finish the sentence. I explained that Baby J is only alive due to the pipe helping him breathe. The mother said "I thought he was alright. Never? How do you know?" I explained that Baby J has brain problems that are not curable. She said "ok" and then became distracted.”
Dr N’s evidence is that the mother cannot currently understand, retain or weigh information relevant to Baby J’s medical treatment, and is evidently not able to express any clear or consistent wishes in this regard. As to the prospects for further recovery, Dr N describes the mother’s communication as “improving but remains impaired”. The conclusion is that at present she remains in PTA and is presenting with significant cognitive communication issues and possible expressive and receptive aphasia. Dr N’s evidence is that she cannot provide an accurate indication of prognosis overall from the mother’s brain injury whilst she remains in PTA. Whilst it remains possible that she could emerge from PTA over the next week, Dr N confirms that it could last for longer, and she does not know what the mother’s condition will be when she does emerge from PTA.