Little boy has been removed from hospital by his parents

[Itsfab]

He is very sick, needs constant treatment. His parents have taken him to France.

I don't understand why the hospital didn't notice or alert the police for 6 hours.

The police won't comment on the parents being Jehovah's Witnesses.

It sounds wrong when the statement said he was removed without consent. The child is theirs, should be allowed to be in charge of him, but of course it is he that will lose his life if not cared for and that isn't in his best interests necessarily.

I hope he is found and can be cured.

I've also been very impressed by the way this family have conducted themselves. They should be very proud of their sons who used their social media skills to bring this to the attention of hoe public and commenced fund raising. watching the way that the son handled his interview with Jon Snow on C4 it was hard to believe he was only 16?

Experienced campaign manages must have been watching in envy. I wish the family well and hope the worst of their problems is now behind them.

With any luck they now won't have to worry about funding the treatment AND they can enjoy a nice little sum in damages. Probably small comfort I know but hopefully this will shake things up a bit so this doesn't happen to another family.

I think the hospital were just utterly ignorant of the power of social media; I don't think their misinformation could have been challenged as powerfully and as quickly by any other means.

Danny and Naveed King are lovely, bright young men. Mr and Mrs King should be very proud.

interesting view re the power of social media Spero

can I ask you. - if the family had not taken him to Spain but had remained in the UK I presume the dispute with SGH would eventually have resulted in a court order similar to that which currently operates. However if they were in the UK does that mean they would not have been able to give their account via social media I.e. Gagging order?

Ethan their friend also deserves a pat on the back, he too is only 16 and he organised the petition . I saw him on the. News today delivering it to Downing Street and he spoke very eloquently

Wet - the power of social media is turning the traditional response of the family courts on its head. Baker J made sensible decision to allow live tweeting of his hearing because the cat was so very far out of the bag.

Gagging orders have limited use when thousands of people can tweet. They can't all be locked up. And I think the President of the Family Division is very genuine in his wish to increase transparency, as he has been saying similar things for over a decade now. His recent case of Re J basically said that parents could put what they like on social media as long as they don't identify the child.

So I don't think that it would have been any different if the parents had remained in the UK. But the fact that they left is what gave the story its impact as the media loves that kind of thing and the angle was irresistible - religious nutters flee with dying tot etc, etc.

I genuinely believe that the motives of the family court have been good ones - it is privacy that they valued, not secrecy. But I also accept that this is becoming a distinction without a difference for many people and the degree of distrust, even hatred, now expressed for SW and other professionals means that we have to do something radical.

Do check out the transparency project, to which I linked below. This is a genuine attempt to try and discuss how this should develop.

I agree Mr and Mrs King should be so proud of their children. I think they are 23 and 20. I think the 16 year old is a family friend at No 10 who took charge of the social media and petitions for his friends, what a resourceful young Man he is.

As has been said the JW religion has had a boost in PR from this.

Thanks Spero. I did have a look at the Transparency Project pages. They are very informative.

The repercussions of this case will reverberate for a long time. I have never seen so many academics, specialists and commentators so outraged. SGH is coming in for a lot of criticism now the facts are in the public domain. The Police are also getting a lot of stick as this had come at the same time as Rotherham and their involvement in the Cliff Richard raid. I have the feeling that faith in public services is probably at an all time low.

I must admit I have sat here thinking why on earth the Govt has not stepped in and sorted out the King miscarriage earlier. Are they forgetting there's an election in 8 months time? It's been like watching a supertanker perform a 3 point turn.

Troels "Tweet: It seems much of the information being discussed is what lawyers have gleaned from media reports {Surely the facts would be preferable?? confused}"

I did have to snigger when I read this. My own recent experience of family court has been precisely this - that facts are a jolly nuisance and shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of a made up story. (yes exH barrister - speaking to you)

Thank you all for posting the various links. I will particularly be looking at the transparency one. Change in the UK family court system cannot come fast enough. Hoping that this disgusting situation can be used to change how authorities misuse their power through the legal system and to empower parents again.

ici I really think you need to start taking the word of those of use who know about feeding machines that it would have been obvious to the hospital that it was NOT the issue they were making it.

But how many of those people have taken their seriously ill children on a long car journey through three countries with no knowledge of how long they will have to continue making arrangements for feeding? And how would this have been obvious to the hospital before the family was found?

It is not the children's fault, I still do not understand why Ashya was left so long without his siblings at least, only a short visit by one DB. That was not right for him or his siblings, it was cruel.

Interesting information from the court. It demonstrates what I suspected, i.e. that the courts would deal with this even-handedly, keeping Ashya's welfare firmly at the forefront of everything; and that people's assumption that the court would inevitably side with the authorities is incorrect.

Ashya King's parents have been freed from a Spanish prison

Brett and Naghemeh King were detained after taking five-year-old Ashya, who has a brain tumour, from a Southampton hospital against medical advice.

They were released after UK prosecutors withdrew a European arrest warrant, stating that they were happy any risk to Ashya's life "was not as great or immediate as... originally thought".

Ashya is being treated in a hospital in Malaga.

Speaking to reporters as the couple left Madrid's Soto Del Real prison, Mr King said: "We will go to see my son as soon as possible, we have been dying to see his face for so long."

A Spanish judge ordered the parents' release after the Crown Prosecution Service said it had "urgently reviewed the case."

A CPS spokesman said: "We consider there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for any criminal offence".

The Transparency project is really needed, many thanks for the link, spero

I think (naively ?) that courts mostly make correct decisions and save a lot of vulnerable people.
However, they depend on honest, accurate information by professionals.
Occasionally, arrogant egotism trumps accuracy.

On principle, I hate the idea of secret courts and gagging, even if we had to try alleged terrorists for the mass murder of thousands.
It makes it more difficult to discover mistakes and also feeds public suspicion of the legal system.
Justice must be seen to be believed.

However, certain details of protection cases may sometimes need to remain secret:
the name and address of the family, or where any child or vulnerable adult was staying.
However, if the Kings had stayed in England, enforcing anonymity would be pointless, since they use social media so much

It is difficult to argue for anonymity of social workers, doctors or police:
In terrorist cases, the names of all witnesses, including police officers, are normally public, unless they are undercover sources.

I'm also impressed by the way J Baker has handled the matter, having read the Twitter feed.

But this case was extraordinary in that there was information in the public domain via social media to defend the parents against this cruelty charge and the CPS had also withdrawn the EAW by the time if the hearing.

I'm not so convinced that Mr Joe Public would have such an easy tide against SW expert opinion in a different case.

An seeker poster reminded us that justice had to be seen to be done. The reporting of this case was a good example

but there seems to have been a rather spiteful and deliberate attempt to paint the worst possible picture at the earliest opportunity which has involved misleading the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

Not totally sure about that. Ignoring the issue of when and what was said about the proton therapy previously. The reasons why SGH say they were concerned on Thurs/Fri
-Ashya was dependent on the pump and his parents weren't trained to use it.
-The power cord for the pump was left behind. (We now know that they had bought one off the internet, but the hospital weren't to know that at the time).
-The parents weren't trained to deal with the issues arising from his NG tube coming dislodged, or his lack of gag reflex, leading to aspiration of the feed.
-He'd had a raised temperature the previous day which might have signified he had an infection.

We have knowledge available to us now, that they didn't have. It is more than reasonable to assume that there were some serious and well founded CP concerns on Thurs/Fri that absolutely justified contacting the police and children's services.

I'm not sure how much jurisdiction UK police and children's services have in Spain, or the level of co-operation they would normally expect. But is it possible that they had their hand slightly forced with the EAW/ward of court because the Kings left the country and that a softer approach may have been taken if they had stayed in the UK where police had jurisdiction.

Rafa, you need to read many, many comments upthread about parents who are trained very early on with the feeding pump. It was recognised as an issue (or non issue) almost immediately by those who have been in the Kings situation. There is a whole ton of stuff on this thread on the first few pages and repeated again a couple of pages ago.

I think the JW 'leak' is one of the reasons I suspect some vindictiveness from the hospital. Relevance?

Ashya's parents used to take him out for long periods of time so they must have been trusted to a certain extent to know what to do. They also stayed with him in hospital constantly and would have observed the staff dealing with him.

I would disagree that the feeding tube is a non issue. The hospital released a statement saying that the Kings had not been trained in nasogastric feeding. Observing the staff is not the same thing. If a nasogastric tube slips out slightly and this is not recognised and the feed continues then the feed can go into the patient's lung and cause an aspiration pneumonia. If the power cord was left behind then they might have assumed that the family didn't have another one. If Ashya was never bolus fed with a syringe then why would the hospital assume that the family would know how to do this?

merry I have read the whole thread. The fact that other parents were trained early on in how to use the feeding pump is completely irrelevant if the hospital know that the Kings haven't been.

That was released yesterday, presumably in response to the criticism they have received.

I'm trying to work out how much of the battery issue came from the hospital and how much was played up by the media on Friday because it gives a tangible angle to sell the story. Seems a mixture of both along with the police paraphrasing the information give by the hospital.

The battery wasn't a complete non-issue since when the police gave the statement the hospital had reason to believe the battery had already run out and they, not the Kings had the equipment to use it fro the mains. The medically trained bit is total bollocks though. Unless they are referring to the tube issues rather than the pump issue (and even then it's debatable) they trained not medically trained.

I don't think the hospital are entirely blameless here. Something has clearly gone very wrong and they are going to need to look at how. But I don't see any evidence to back up the assertion that they have acted maliciously or spitefully to get back at the Kings for questioning them.

It was linked to in another thread. link I don't know why the media made such of a big deal out of the power running out on a piece of "life saving equipment". They might have thought that sounded more sensationalist than he could aspirate. I don't think for one minute that the medical staff were not concerned about this issue.

Rafa, sadly I am taking everything the hospital releases with a pinch of salt now. Perhaps the parents hadn't had level 5 training or something. Clearly his parents did know how to use it, since they used it and he was ok, and had researched it fairly thoroughly, enough to buy the spare lead, spare food etc.

Also, they were allowed to take him out, so what would happen if he aspirated when they were alone with him? There must have been some 'training' to a point the hospital were happy for him to be alone, out and about with them for a considerable amount of time.

Most importantly, I don't think his parents would have risked his life considering how much effort they are putting into saving it.

Interesting information from the court. It demonstrates what I suspected, i.e. that the courts would deal with this even-handedly, keeping Ashya's welfare firmly at the forefront of everything; and that people's assumption that the court would inevitably side with the authorities is incorrect

Nobody is saying that. What people have been trying to express to you over several threads and days is that its highly likely that's what the family thoughtwould happen. That obtaining legal advice when your child is in that situation could quite feasibly be the last thing they could think of for understandable reasons.

People in authority may on occasions say they can get court orders without knowing if they would have any success and a lot of people believe them it happens all the time,often when the intention is to not even attempt to obtain an order it's just to get someone to comply.its usually a method used by people with no legal training at all (they also tend to use the phrase "the court would take a dim view of xyz). It is not ususual for perfectly intelligent people to perceive medical professionals as in authority or somehow powerful just the same as they view solicitors or social workers.

How many times do you hear people talk about solicitors as if they are being instructed by them rather than the other way round or hear of social workers advising people to voluntary place children in LA care because we will get a court order if you don't. Why is it such a stretch for you to believe that a doctor could say or imply they would/could get a court order and that some people may be intimidated by doctors?

Especially a family made vulnerable by the trauma of a child's health and their religion as well as a few other circumstances.

Merry I mentioned way up thread that the tube itself was an issue. The parents weren't away for a long period of time, they were having a walk in the hospital grounds, in easy reach of help if problems arose, or it may be that the walk coincided with a break in his feeds. Things could have very easily been not "OK".