Consent, control, and ‘the silencing of the child’s voice in medical interventions’ – Re G [2025] Fam Law 254
![Consent, control, and ‘the silencing of the child’s voice in medical interventions’ – Re G [2025] Fam Law 254](https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2024/10/Avaia-Williams-Banner.png)
We are pleased to share that Parklane Plowden family pupil, Avaia Williams, has recently published an article in the Family Law Journal (February 2025).
In this piece, Avaia provides insight into the High Court decision in Re G, where the court examined whether parental consent can authorise nasogastric feeding (and any necessary restraint) of a 12-year-old girl with anorexia nervosa who refused treatment. Central to the article is the tension between, on the one hand, established case law and parental responsibility, and, on the other, the paramount importance of the child’s rights and autonomy. Avaia discusses how the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice, now considered outdated, complicates these cases and leaves ambiguity about the proper legal framework.
“The spillover of this reasoning into cases like Re G, where G’s resistance to treatment was known, places the child’s rights at the bottom of the hierarchy, effectively replacing their voice with parental consent shaped by medical advice. This is particularly concerning when the child is not capable of articulating their opposition or consent, further marginalising their autonomy.”
In addressing the court’s ruling that a parent can consent to treatment, even that which is repeatedly “invasive and traumatic” and will amount to a deprivation of liberty, the article questions whether the welfare principle and a child’s wishes truly retain their prominence when a child’s competence is in doubt. Avaia highlights the potential need for more robust judicial oversight:
“Going forward, notwithstanding the discussion in Re G, Trusts would be benefited by issuing cases to ensure proper oversight, particularly given there are going to be such circumstances where it is not clearly in the best interests of the child to restrain and enforce treatment. Until such a time as a revised Code is produced, best practice should ensure that the welfare principle is upheld, and that the child’s voice (even if apparently ascertainable through parents) is properly heard.”
For further details on Re G’s implications for both families and practitioners, you can read Avaia’s full article in Family Law Journal (February 2025 issue) here.
Avaia will be taking instructions in all areas of children law and Court of Protection (Health & Welfare) from 07 April 2025.