Ici, for many parents that is not much of a choice - spend £5k to £20k on legal fees and lose against the hospital or take the boy abroad to protect him? Not surprising they took the later choice.
But they're prepared to spend more than that to take him abroad - and removing him from all treatment whilst travelling through France and Spain wasn't protecting him.
And why would they inevitably lose? As has been pointed out, the treatment they want clearly isn't woo, and if they have so much faith in it that they'll take these steps to access it, surely they'd have faith in the court believing them, or indeed persuading the hospital.
Bear in mind that the Official Solicitor would be involved and would get his own reports. If they supported the parents, that would probably resolve the matter.
Relatively few of these cases have actually come to court, particularly since the Human Rights Act. Hospitals are realising, or being forced to realise, that they have to listen to patients and parents. Look at the case of Leah-Beth Richards, for instance.
We're you aware of the Neon Roberts case at all?
Well, yes. That was the case of the mother who opposed radiotherapy for her child but could bring no evidence in support of her views. The child's father agreed with the hospital. He duly received radiotherapy and is apparently now well.
The fact that a mother who had no evidence lost a similar case does not mean that parents who have evidence will do so also.
But all of this is a bit academic given that the hospital was prepared to help this family get a second opinion and seek treatment abroad.