S2(2)(7) "Where more than one person has parental responsibility for a child each of them may act alone and without the other… but nothing in this part shall be taken to affect the operation of any enactment which requires the consent of more than one"

S100(4)(b) "The court may only grant leave if it is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that if the court's inherent jurisdiction is not exercised with respect to the child he is likely to suffer significant harm"

S22(4) (consistent with Art 12 of UNCRC) - authority must as far as reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child

S22 (5) give due weight and consideration to those wishes and feelings

UNCRC - all children under 17 have certain rights. - special protective measures and assistance / be informed and participate in their rights

Auckland and Goold (2019) - arguments for SH threshold: balances commitment to liberty (Art 9 ECHR) w need to protect child, accords with public expectations, consistent with S31 of Children Act 1989

Emma Cave "coercive medical treatment is one of the most serious invasions of bodily autonomy sanctionable in a democratic society"

arguments against SH threshold: Difficulty of assessing harm and its significance (clear in most cases?), Danger of chilling effect – parent not disagreeing because of stigma, Danger of escalation to care proceedings

Rachel Taylor (2019) "the law regards the upbringing of children not as a matter of exclusive parental rights to be defended unless fortified, but as a collaborative responsibility in which parents take the leading role"

S3(5)(b) non-parents may have parental responsibility. They are entitled to do "what is reasonable in all circumstances to safeguard or promote the child's welfare"

Brian D Earp (re circumcision) should be left until boy is old enough to consent

Marie Fox and Michael Thomson problem with family relationships taking priority over the child's interests and rights (esp w regard to religious beliefs, circumcision?)

Emily Jackson 'zone of parental discretion' where parents agree re circumcision and immunisation p305

Under Children Act, court can issue a specific issue order or prohibited steps order to determine what treatment a child should receive (though they cannot dictate what a child will have)

S1(1) In any question affecting a child's upbringing, her welfare must be the paramount consideration (first given statutory form in Guardian of Infants Act 1925)

N Tan and Iain Brassington (2009) benefits to Ashley were minimal. Treatment was invasive and not palliative, it didn't treat existing symptoms, reason given by the doctors was that it was done 'to make caring for the child less burdensome and therefore more accessible'. It was an attempt not to meet the challenges of Ashley's conditions but not to have to meet them

Jo Bridgman Critical of Baker J use of 'reasonable' in his judgement and because he 'gave no further consideration to either his welfare or his rights'. Fact that 'reasonableness' was a factor does not reflect established law. (In Re King 2014)

Ranjana Das (2018) Gard and Evans cases have mobilised 'anti-expert' populist rhetoric, created through an 'evil outgroup' (state healthcare, judiciary) and a wronged in-group (private individuals and parents of ill children).

Douglas Diekema (2004) "the proper question is not 'is this intervention in the child's best interest?' but rather 'does the decision made by the parents significantly increase the likelihood of serious harm as compared to other options?' Parental decisions that do not sig. inc. harm should be tolerated.

Dominic Wilkinson and Tara Neir (2016) "parents make decisions that are not in the best interests of their children… in those areas parents are given a degree of freedom. We accept that it is important to allow parents to make decisions, good and bad, for themselves and for their children." (only if their decisions will risk serious harm should the state intervene)

Jo Bridgeman (2018) If court decides a parent's decision is putting a child in sig harm then the criteria for removing the child would also be met.

Jo Bridgeman (2017) trusts and parents ought to 'work in partnership' and avoid 'divisive, stressful, legal proceedings'

likely effect would be that the inquiry would 'descend into a discussion of what is meant by 'harm' and how much of it is necessary to be 'significant' in a medical context. Best Interests test allow SH to be considered within a wider context of other considerations.

Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu (2018) "Continued intensive care…represents an unreasonable and unfair use of limited healthcare resources… it may have been better to allow the parents to take Charlie overseas months ago. Indeed, even if we accept that that would have been contrary to Charlie's BIs, it may have been a lesser harm overall"

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2006) "Clinical committees could be charged to review all decisions made in relation to withdrawal of intensive care… Such a review would ensure an external and independent evaluation of a baby's interests…"

Jo Brierley, Jim Linthicum and Andy Petros (2013) 3 yr period, 203 children had life support withdrawn/limited. 186 families agreed. 6 more were resolved, but 11 involved long and challenging discussions largely based on sanctity of life. "We suggest it is time to… facilitate rapid and default access to courts in such situations when the BIs of the child are compromised in expectation of the miraculous"

John Harris: "there is something about Mary's life expectancy that makes plausible the decision in Re A… it would not have been a biographical life, not the life of a person"

S3(1) 'Parental responsibility' means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property'

Ronan Gillon (2001) "The parents were neither incompetent nor negligent - the standard for depriving parents of such authority… (the courts) should have allowed the parents to refuse medical intervention while still ruling as it did, that such separation would not have been unlawful if parents consented"

Barbara Hewson (2001) "Ward LJ use of pejorative language perpetuated idea of 'unworthiness' and that Mary was positively culpable, and by the end, in a logical leap, he portrays Mary as killing Jodie. His description was inaccurate and this was not Mary's fault.

Kirsty L Moreton (2015) "It is inconsistent that the law rejects collaboration in the decision making process only to call upon it to deal with the consequences of that decision"(Re An NHS Trust v A 2014)

MDA Freeman (1983) What sorts of action or conduct would we wish, as children, to be shielded against on the assumption that we would want to mature to a rationally autonomous adulthood and be capable of deciding on our own system of ends as free and rational beings?

Stephen Gilmore 2009 "Gillick was essentially a case about children's welfare…I shall argue that the solution adopted by their Lordships suggests that parental discretion is regulated by reference to child welfare, taking into account the child's abilities, and that the boundary of discretion lies at the point at which the parent's protective role can be safely abandoned."