Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and R (A Child)

Ian.jpgCharlie Gard’s parents have announced an intention to campaign for a change to the bests interests test governing disputes about a child’s medical treatment. The want to add or substitute the significant harm threshold that applies in cases where the Local Authority wants to take a child into care. This blog explores some of the possible implications of that change for children and parents through the prism of the recent decision in R (A Child). R, a severely disabled 11 year old girl about whom the Local Authority already had welfare concerns, was taken into care after her mother and her doctors could not agree about R’s medical treatment. R’s mother was represented by Ian Mcardle of Rosie Bracher who instructed Katie Gollop QC and Sarah Pope, the blog’s authors. Excellent teamwork and attention to detail, together with a mature attitude on the part of R’s mother, meant that a satisfactory outcome was achieved whereby R remained in care whilst her mother underwent psychotherapy paid for by the Local Authority with a view to R returning home in due course

 

Read the blog, here:

http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/charlie-gard-alfie-evans-and-r-a-child-why-a-medical-treatment-significant-harm-test-would-hinder-not-help/