Child A’s doctors considered that she would need treatment over the following two years and that this could involve the need for blood transfusions at any time. The parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses and refused consent.
Held: The order allowing a transfusion to be given was made. The child’s need for blood was so overwhelming that, in her best interests, her parent’s beliefs had to be overridden. An authority should obtain a specific issue order with regard to the use of blood products on a child.
Booth J discussed the issue of how such applications should be handled procedurally: ‘I am in complete agreement with the essential premise of the conclusions reached by Johnson J. Such issues are of the utmost gravity and are of particular anxiety since the decision of the court may run counter to the most profound and sincerely held beliefs of the parents. For these reasons the most strenuous efforts should always be made to achieve an inter partes hearing. Such issues should also be determined, wherever possible, by a High Court judge and this is of particular importance in those exceptional circumstances where an application must be made ex parte so that the parents cannot be heard. But in my judgment these prerequisites can be as well met by an application for a specific issue order under s 8 as by an application for the exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction. A section 8 application can, and in circumstances such as these undoubtedly should, be made to the High Court. When leave to make it is sought by a local authority, or other appropriate body or person, the district judge, as in this case, can give all necessary directions for a speedy hearing. It will then be heard by a High Court judge. Although there is yet no reported decision as to whether or not a specific issue order can be made ex parte, I should be very surprised if the words of the statute had to be interpreted so narrowly as to deny the court power to give such relief where it was otherwise justified and the circumstances compelled an ex parte hearing. But if such an issue were to come before a judge of the Family Division who was constrained to find the court’s jurisdiction to be so limited, the power to invoke the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court would be immediately available and appropriate.
In the present case I am in no doubt that the application is well-founded under section 8 of the Act. The result which the local authority wishes to achieve, namely, the court’s authorisation for the use of blood products, can clearly be achieved by the means of such an order. There is no need for the court otherwise to intervene to safeguard the little girl, so that I am satisfied that it is unnecessary and inappropriate for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.’
Judges:
Booth J
Citations:
Times 08-Jun-1993, Independent 09-Jun-1993, [1993] 2 FLR 757
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re O (A minor) (Medical Treatment) FD 12-Apr-1993
The local authority applied for a care order in relation to the child, on the ground that there was an urgent and continuing need for medical treatment which included blood transfusions. The court considered the legal effect of a parent’s belief (as . .
Cited by:
Cited – In Re T (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) CA 24-Oct-1996
A baby boy who was 18 months old, suffered from a life-threatening liver defect. His parents were health-care professionals experienced in the care of sick children. The unanimous medical view was that as soon as donor liver became available the . .
Cited – LA v SB and Others CA 12-Jul-2010
The local authority had applied for a care order under the court’s inherent wardship jurisdiction in connection with a family where three children suffered a potentially life threatening disease, Rasmussens’s encephalitis. The parents were said to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Health
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.78854
