Whilst the majority of the court’s children cases often involve disputes between parents, or care proceedings (where the local authority is involved), there are times where the court is asked to consider medical treatment when the medical professionals have opposing opinions to the parents of a child. When there are conflicting views, the court is asked to intervene to determine the best outcome for the child.

Recently, the decision in Re C (a child) [2025] EWHC 413 (Fam), has shown that in the event that medical advice differs from the parent’s views, in the best interests of prolonging life, the court has the power to order medical intervention. The case of Re C is not a simple case and shows that the court has to make the toughest decisions especially where neither outcome has a one-hundred-percent safe outcome, and the court must balance a number of factors including medical, emotional and religious factors.

Re C concerns a child, who is fourteen months old and who was born at 35 weeks. She has been diagnosed with various complex health difficulties, with one of these being liver disease. In order to keep her alive, the medical advice pointed towards having a liver transplant. Her parents were not convinced that this would be the best outcome as there was only a 51% chance that the transplant would be successful over five years, and that was only if her young body took to the transplant. The 51% success statistic did not account for all of the child’s other difficulties and the parents felt that the chance of success was even lower than the 51%.

Alongside their issues with the medical statistics, and concerns for putting their daughter through such invasive surgery, the parents are recorded as strong and devoted Catholics. They had faith that without the transplant, their daughter would be healed by God and would often attend online live healing streams to try to bring their daughter close to God.

The judgement in this case accepted that the parent’s religious beliefs and opinions were important, and the Judge commended the parents for their love, care and devotion but ultimately the court had to determine what was in the best interests of the child, on the evidence that is provided to them. This precedent was determined in Re B (A minor) [1982], and in Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust -v- Wyatt [2005]. The Judge did recognise that it is impossible to be certain that surgery will work, and acknowledged that ‘the parents were right to point out that there are occasions when the predictions of medical professionals do not materialise.’

The case of Yates and Gard -v- Great Ormond Street Hospital [2017] also sets an important precedent and confirms “The sole principle [that] is [in] the best interests of the child must prevail and that must apply even to cases where parents, for the best of motives, hold on to some alternative view.” This case played a particularly important role in Re C as it shows that even when there are conflicting opinions, the court must consider the best outcome for the child.

Re C [2025] highlights the power of the court in children matters. The court can override the parent’s views in matters where the child is in danger of injury or death and will act in the best interests of the child. Re C does also acknowledge that not every case is clear-cut, and it must be determined on the facts of the individual case.

If you are in need of advice in relation to children matters, or other family matters, please reach out to our specialist family lawyers for advice. We recommend obtaining advice at the earliest opportunity.  We offer a free exploratory call so that we can match your specific needs with the right person in our family team.  For more information or to arrange an appointment with a member of our Family Team, please contact us on 01206 764477. The team can offer advice at one of our offices in Colchester, Chelmsford,  Frinton-on-Sea, Ipswich or Bury St Edmunds, or by telephone or video appointment