Interference with medical equipment

Re P (A Child) (Interference with Medical Equipment) [2026] EWHC 2100 (Fam)

P was born with a congenital life limiting condition that required inpatient hospital care for the majority of his life. P’s condition required ongoing medical monitoring both in and out of hospital since his birth. His condition required constant monitoring and investigations and long periods of inpatient care at various hospitals. The parents were involved extensively in care of P and presented as caring and loving.  

At a hospital managed by Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, P had a further period of inpatient care requiring treatment through lines. By the end of January 2025 there were concerns that the lines had been interfered with. The hospital staff were concerned that the mother was preoccupied with a particular course of treatment and made a safeguarding referral alleging behaviours amounting to factitious and induced illness. In February 2025 both parents were arrested for attempted murder and their ability to spend time with P was curtailed by bail conditions. The local authority issued proceedings in March 2025 and for the next year P’s time with both of his parents was severely restricted. After a brief period of some improvement, P’s condition deteriorated further, requiring invasive medical surgery which required him to remain in hospital indefinitely. 

An internal investigation by the hospital into the events of line disconnection concluded that no single member of staff was on duty across each occasion and that such disconnections had stopped since the parents’ time with P became supervised. The internal investigation concluded that disconnections could not be attributed to a member of hospital staff or equipment malfunction. 

In November 2025, during a contact between P and his mother, a line disconnection occurred. The contact was supervised by two contact supervisors provided by the local authority. 

The Decision

The matter came to fact finding before Keehan J in March 2026. 

The local authority alleged the mother had interfered with external catheter lines connected to intravenously inserted lines used for administering medication to P on a number of occasions, including one occasion where the line was found cut in two. The local authority alleged also that the mother had exaggerated P’s medical condition by presenting P as being on a particular treatment plan which he was not on at the time and being fixated on a particular form of treatment which was not clinically required at the time. The local authority alleged that the father had been responsible for one line disconnection in February 2025 after the mother’s time had been restricted. 

The court had extensive medical evidence from the hospital and heard evidence from a number of nurses and doctors at the hospital. The court also heard evidence from a consultant paediatrician, Kate Ward, instructed as an expert witness in the family proceedings. 

In respect of the father, the clinical notes and ward CCTV demonstrated that the line was intact at the point the father left the ward and was seen intact an hour after he had left. This was confirmed in the oral evidence of the nurse who made the notes. It was clear that the mother had not been at the hospital that afternoon or evening and the father had left the hospital at least one hour before the time the line had last been checked and when the disconnection was found. This allegation was not then pursued by the local authority and the father did not give evidence.

The court found that the mother was responsible for two occasions of line disconnection in close proximity to each other, one by cutting and the other by uncoupling at the connecting site. The court identified the mother to be in a highly emotional state at both of these disconnections. The court could not find the mother had disconnected the line during a supervised contact in November 2025.

The judge did not make a finding or draw a conclusion either way in respect of the mother’s motivation for the line disconnections, deferring such determination to the welfare hearing following risk assessment. 

Discussion

This case shows the difficulties parents face where their children suffer from serious and lifelong medical conditions. As the judge himself observed “The enormous great stress and pressure on the parent of a seriously ill child who has spent prolonged periods in hospital and whose condition has markedly fluctuated from day to day and week to week cannot be overstated.” Professionals from hospitals and local authorities have to unpick where understandable anxiety and concern end and harmful, even if unintended, behaviour begins with great care and circumspection. As there was no doubt that P was a very unwell child with a clearly understood diagnosed health condition, the case of the local authority was nuanced and focussed on deliberate acts of interference with medical equipment and a preoccupation with a particular course of treatment, rather than alleging parental care had either misrepresented the child’s condition or induced it.  

The case also demonstrates the care professional bodies must take in the pleadings they seek. In this case, the father was unable to spend time with his child unsupervised until part way through the fact-finding hearing, when the allegation of interference against him was not pursued. The point was made that nothing new emerged from the evidence that was not already in the records and the local authority should not have pursued the only allegation it set out against the father. The significant delay in listing the matter for trial and the court being unable to consider the evidence base for separation until hearing from the witnesses led to this father and P being unable to enjoy family life together for 13 months, even if that family life would have been confined to a hospital environment. The decisions of local authorities in the approach they take to the allegations they pursue in court have life changing consequences and require constant reflection during the life of the case. The police also owe this responsibility during the course of their, quite often lengthy, investigations. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, the father remained under investigation for attempted murder. 

The case has attracted media interest and the reporting is governed by a transparency order. 

James Norman is a barrister at 42BR. Instructed by Catriona Allan of Goodman Ray, he acted for the Father.