Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v PP [2025] EWHC 783 (Fam) (Link to BAILII).
With thanks to Tina Cockburn for drawing attention to this English decision.
The mother presented at hospital with Kikuchi Lymphadenitis which may indicate that she had HIV. The applicant considered that there is a real risk that she is infected with HIV. However the mother refused to consent to cord blood screening for blood borne viruses upon the birth of the child, despite evidence that there is (after birth) a 4 hour window to get antiretroviral treatment into the baby to give the baby the best chance of avoiding developing HIV. The treatment is most effective within 24 hours. It has no effect after 72 hours.
The court held that it had no jurisdiction to determine what should happen to the foetus when born, before it is born. ([48]). Orders were made such that the matter could urgently return for further consideration by the court on the birth of the child.
NOTE
There was a postscript to the above decision as follows. On 27 March 2025 PP was delivered of her baby. A hearing took place before me within an hour of the baby’s birth. The baby’s guardian was able to attend the hearing and instruct a solicitor to represent the baby’s interests. Consent to test was provided as being overwhelmingly in the baby’s best interests.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2390]