S (A Child)

Where medical evidence relevant to a parent’s ability to travel and resume care of a child remains unresolved, the court may adjourn an application concerning the child’s return and seek focused medical information before making or enforcing consequential arrangements. The evidence should address the tests completed, any further investigations, the parent’s medical condition, fitness to travel, and the likely timing of fitness if travel is presently inappropriate.

The mother sought permission to appeal and an extension of a stay concerning orders made by Hogg J for the return of her young son, V S, to Belgium. The orders had been varied after the mother was admitted to hospital with a suspected heart attack. Further investigation had excluded myocardial infarction but raised the possibility of myocardial ischaemia, leading to her transfer for urgent coronary angiography. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should defer arrangements for the father to collect the child until the medical uncertainty had been resolved.

1. The applications for permission to appeal and for an extension of the stay were adjourned for seven days. The court did not finally determine whether the child’s return arrangements should be altered.
2. The medical evidence did not yet permit a reliable conclusion about the mother’s condition or her ability to travel to Belgium. The further report stated that myocardial infarction had not occurred, but subsequent ECGs suggested myocardial ischaemia and investigations remained incomplete.
3. The court directed that focused information be obtained from the consultant cardiologist. The requested matters were: the outcome of completed tests; whether further tests were required; the consultant’s opinion on the mother’s cardiac condition; and whether she was fit to travel to Belgium, or, if not, when she was expected to become fit.
4. The court declined to ask whether the mother was fit to resume care of the child. The next hearing was to be listed in seven days, with the requested medical response sought by 2.00 pm on the Friday.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The applications concerning permission to appeal and an extension of the stay were adjourned for seven days. The court sought further medical evidence.
• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Hogg J made orders on 23 July 2001 for the child’s return to Belgium and varied them on 30 July 2001, extending the return deadline and making provision for the father to collect the child.