A Supreme Court judge has said that a wardship order concerning a child identified in the judgment as John should have been limited to decisions about his medical care, rather than placing all aspects of his welfare under court control.
In a separate judgment delivered on 22 January 2021, Ms Justice Marie Baker said the High Court was entitled to invoke its wardship jurisdiction after a dispute arose about medical treatment for John. She said the order taking him into wardship was made too early, before his parents and the guardian ad litem had a full opportunity to address the evidence and arguments.
Baker said the evidence ultimately justified an order to protect John, so the timing problem did not mean the Supreme Court should simply set the wardship order aside. She also considered that the High Court’s inquiry could be reopened when new evidence emerged about an improvement in John’s dystonia following treatment, and that the court could question medical witnesses and appoint a guardian ad litem to represent his interests.
Her central concern was the breadth of the order. Baker said it transferred decision-making over all aspects of John’s welfare to the court. She noted that his parents did not object to a procedure regarded by the parties as routine and beneficial, but the court’s authority was still needed before it could proceed. In her view, this illustrated how a broad wardship order could displace parents’ ordinary role even where there was no dispute about treatment.
Baker said the court’s power over a minor should be exercised proportionately and with regard to the constitutional rights and duties of parents and child. She proposed limiting the order to directions on pain-relieving medication and life-supporting treatment if a dystonic episode required it, together with related emergency care directions. Other decisions about John’s welfare and happiness, she said, should remain with his parents.
The judgment is expressly separate from the Principal Judgment delivered in the case. It sets out Baker’s analysis and preferred approach; it does not, on its own, state the full terms of the Supreme Court’s operative orders. The supplied source does not include the Principal Judgment.