A Child, Re

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child and members of her family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

The parents were initially represented in these court proceedings, the mother I think changing solicitors once. However in the latter part of the proceedings they have represented themselves and have done so very ably in this hearing, the parents conferring together and then the mother asking questions of witnesses. I should say the parents have also clearly researched the law in this area and have properly drawn my attention to very relevant case law.

On 2 December the previous judge of her own motion sent a notice to the parents, again urging them to seek legal representation, but to no avail. It was after that that the mother issued proceedings against that judge in the High Court, and I believe also against individuals within the local authority.

The local authority's plan has become one of adoption and on 22 January it issued an application for a placement order. I have had to consider that application alongside the original care application in this hearing.

The only other relevant matter to raise at this point is that an application was made by the local authority in recent weeks for the child to be tested for HIV. This request emanated from the hospital, specifically the consultant community paediatrician who acts as Medical Advisor to the Adoption Panel. I shall return to this application later in this judgment.