In The Matter Of An Intended Application For Minor Wardship: TN [A Minor] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Child and Family Agency (Applicant) (hereafter "Company A") brought an ex parte minor wardship application on 1 May 2026 concerning a 17‑year‑old (hereafter "Plaintiff") diagnosed with Stage IV vaginal clear cell carcinoma who had declined chemotherapy and other hospital treatment. Company A sought, inter alia, orders preventing the Plaintiff leaving the jurisdiction, surrendering passports, and orders to facilitate medical assessment, capacity assessment, admission and treatment.

Company A's application relied on an affidavit of a social worker setting out concerns about the Plaintiff's disengagement from recommended treatment and a prior episode in May 2025 when the Plaintiff travelled abroad and contact was difficult. On 1 May 2026 the Court made the ex parte orders sought, appointed a Guardian ad Litem, and granted liberty to serve the Minor Summons and Notice of Motion. The matter was returned for inter partes hearings on 5, 7 and 14 May 2026 and further listed for 19 June 2026.

The Guardian ad Litem met the Plaintiff and reported that the Plaintiff was articulate, refused further medical assessment but accepted a capacity assessment. The Plaintiff's parents (Respondents) filed an affidavit expressing support for the Plaintiff's choices, asserting improvement on alternative herbal treatment, disputing parental coercion, and consenting to a capacity assessment.

The Hospital (Notice Party) arranged an independent psychiatric capacity assessment by an independent psychiatrist. That assessor concluded the Plaintiff had capacity to make decisions about diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options and palliative care. Following that report Company A did not pursue the substantive orders originally sought.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should exercise its minor wardship jurisdiction to make orders concerning the Plaintiff's medical assessment and treatment given the Plaintiff's decision to decline conventional treatment.
2. Whether interim protective orders preventing removal from the jurisdiction and requiring surrender of passports should be continued.
3. Whether the Plaintiff has capacity to make decisions about her diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options and palliative care.

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• Company A sought orders to restrain removal from the jurisdiction, require surrender of passports and permit notification to relevant authorities, grounded in urgent welfare concerns given the Plaintiff's Stage IV diagnosis and disengagement from recommended treatment.
• Company A relied on an affidavit from its social worker describing difficulty maintaining contact while the Plaintiff was abroad and the resulting concern that, if notified, the parents might remove the Plaintiff from the jurisdiction.

Respondents' (Parents') Arguments

• The Respondents maintained they support the Plaintiff's decision to decline conventional treatment and had pursued alternative herbal treatment which they believed had improved the Plaintiff's condition.
• They opposed substantive compulsion for treatment, denied intention to remove the Plaintiff from the jurisdiction, and consented to a capacity assessment to inform the Court before any coercive orders were made.

Guardian ad Litem's Position

• The Guardian ad Litem reported the Plaintiff as able to articulate her views, unwilling to undergo hospital assessment but willing to undergo a capacity assessment, and recommended that a capacity assessment be undertaken before considering further orders.

The Hospital's Position

• The Hospital arranged for an independent psychiatric capacity assessment and placed that assessment before the Court; the Hospital did not seek maintenance of the originally sought substantive orders once the assessor's report was available.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by assessing the central factual and legal question of the Plaintiff's decision‑making capacity. The Court noted the initial justification for Company A's ex parte application given the serious medical condition and uncertain circumstances at the time the application was brought.

The Court accepted the view, agreed by the parties, that an independent capacity assessment was the first critical step. The independent psychiatric assessment, exhibited to the Court, set out detailed interview material and concluded the Plaintiff understood her diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options and the likely consequences of accepting or declining treatment, and that she could understand, retain, use and weigh relevant information and communicate decisions.

On the basis of that expert assessment and the Guardian ad Litem's reports recording the Plaintiff's clear views and understanding, the Court concluded there was no basis to exercise the minor wardship jurisdiction to make orders compelling treatment. The Court also had regard to the Plaintiff's imminent 18th birthday, but treated the expert capacity finding as decisive notwithstanding that proximity.

The Court therefore accepted the parties' joint position that no further orders should be made and that the minor wardship proceedings should be struck out, while retaining the existing s.45 order that the proceedings be heard otherwise than in public.

Holding and Implications

The minor wardship proceedings were struck out and previous orders were vacated except for the s.45 privacy order, which remains in place.

Direct consequences (as ordered by the Court):

• The minor wardship summons was struck out and prior orders vacated except for the s.45 order keeping the proceedings private.
• The Guardian ad Litem was discharged; the Guardian ad Litem's costs were ordered to be paid by Company A and adjudicated in default of agreement.
• The Respondents' costs were ordered to be adjudicated in default of agreement and paid by Company A; The Hospital will bear its own costs.
• The Court accepted the independent assessment that the Plaintiff has capacity to make decisions about her healthcare and treatment; accordingly, no coercive medical orders were made under the Court's minor wardship jurisdiction.

No broader legal precedent was stated to be established by the judgment; the decision resolved the parties' dispute and determined the immediate legal position between them.

Administrative Details

This judgment was delivered by Judge [Last Name] on 16 July 2026. Proceedings were heard otherwise than in public pursuant to s.45 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961.

Appearances (anonymised):

• Company A: Attorney [Last Name] and Attorney [Last Name] instructed by Office of Legal Services, Company A
• The Hospital: Attorney [Last Name] instructed by solicitors for The Hospital
• Guardian ad Litem: Attorney [Last Name] instructed by solicitors for the Guardian ad Litem
• Respondents (Parents): Attorney [Last Name] instructed by solicitors for the Respondents