Letters to the Editor

Abstract

Journal of Paediatrics and Child HealthVolume 36, Issue 2 p. 196-198 Free Access Letters to the Editor First published: 24 December 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1754.2000.0473d.xCitations: 1AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat 15 October 1999 Dear Editor, PRENATAL CARE APPLICATIONS Two recent cases, one in New South Wales (NSW), Australia and the other in England, UK, have examined the care and protection issues for a child born to a mother who is HIV-1 positive In the NSW case, 1 the Department of Community Services made an application to the Supreme Court rather than to the Children’s Court, as it acknowledged that powers under the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 only existed once a child was born. The Supreme Court agreed that it held sufficient power to make orders to protect a child who was not yet born. In its application, the Department of Community Services argued that the chances of the child not contracting HIV-1 would be significantly enhanced if the child was born by Caesarian section, the child received AZT serum within the first 24 h of life, and the child was not breast-fed. In the circumstances, it was not necessary for the court to make an order on the way the mother gave birth. Subsequent to the birth, the court did grant a permanent injunction to prohibit the mother breast-feeding as the Judge found that ‘there is such a risk of irreparable injury that the grant of an injunction is justified’. The circumstances were similar in the later English case, 2 except that the child welfare authority did not become aware of the child until she was 4-months-old. The mother was HIV-1 positive, refused treatment, refused an elective Caesarean section and insisted on breast-feeding the child. An order was sought and granted under the English equivalent of section 23 (NSW) Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987, for the child to be tested for HIV-1. If the tests were positive then, because of the lateness of action, it would be necessary for the authority to seek court orders for medical treatment without parental consent and, possibly, care orders for the removal of the child from its mother. These applications would have serious implications for the future well-being of the child. The decisions are important in demonstrating the need to act promptly, and the range of powers which may be available to a court or a child welfare agency both outside and within existing care and protection legislation. R BEST Director, Legal Services D SMITH Team Leader, Child Law Legal Services Department of Community Services Ashfield, NSW Australia REFERENCES 1 Department of Community Services vs. A baby (unreported 9 July 1999 per Austin J, NSW Supreme Court), re: Baby A (unreported 26 July 1999 per Young J, NSW Supreme Court). Google Scholar 2 BrahamsD. Court order for HIV-1 test for baby. Lancet 1999; 367: 884. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume36, Issue2April 2000Pages 196-198 ReferencesRelatedInformation