A devoted mother only known as FN (due to a court-imposed transparency order) is fighting to protect the life of her 28-year-old son (FHR)
FHR suffered a severe brain injury in 2020 and is now in a prolonged disorder of consciousness. He lived at home with his family for nearly five years before being moved to a care home in 2025 for what his family understood to be a temporary assessment. After raising concerns about the way he was being treated in the care home, FHR’s mother (who is also anonymised as ‘FN’) was banned from even visiting him.
In August 2026, Mr Justice McKendrick ruled that continuing to provide FHR with clinically assisted nutrition and hydration was not in his best interests. The ruling came despite opposition from his family and despite the position previously agreed by his treating clinicians at a best-interests meeting.
FN is challenging the decision with support from the Christian Legal Centre. She believes that her son, who remains vulnerable, should be allowed to live naturally and continue receiving food, fluids and care.
What’s at stake?
- Every human life has inherent dignity and value, regardless of disability, dependency, or level of consciousness. Even profound disability must never be treated as a reason to end someone’s life.
- Food and fluids should not be withdrawn from a vulnerable patient when the consequence of that decision is death, especially when the courts haven’t fully considered the possibility of improvement, the patient’s responses, and the evidence of those who know and love the patient best.
- Families should be heard and treated with compassion when such serious decisions are made about their loved ones. A mother’s knowledge of her son, his history, personality, responses and wishes should not be dismissed.
- Open justice and public scrutiny are vital safeguards in end-of-life cases. Transparency Orders should not prevent families from seeking support, prayer and proper public scrutiny while these life-and-death decisions are being made.
- Disabled and incapacitated people must be protected from decisions which judge their lives to be futile, burdensome or without sufficient pleasure. The law should protect vulnerable patients rather than place their lives at greater risk.
Timeline:
2020:
- FHR at age 22 suffered a catastrophic hypoxic brain injury and is left in a prolonged disorder of consciousness.
- Following his injury FHR requires extensive care and support. His family continue to love and care for him in his profoundly vulnerable condition.
2020–2025:
- FHR lives at home under the care of his mother and a team of nurses and carers. FN says that during this period her son was stable, surrounded by his family and capable of showing responses to familiar people.
2025:
- April: FHR is moved from his family home to a care home for what the family understand will be a temporary assessment of his neurological condition.
- 17 April: FN and her daughter become seriously concerned about a deterioration in FHR’s breathing. FHR is taken to hospital and treated for aspiration pneumonia. Following his discharge from hospital, the family is prevented from visiting FHR in person. FN says that her contact with her son is subsequently reduced to short video calls.
- 26 April: FN posts a video on social media to tell her son’s story and raise concerns about his care. The video goes viral and receives more than one million views.
- 19 May: The Court strengthens the Transparency Order, preventing the publication of photographs or videos of FHR taken since his brain injury. FN says the order leaves her unable to tell her son’s story properly, seek public support or show people her son who she is fighting to protect.
- The NHS North East London Integrated Care Board makes an application to commit FN to prison for alleged breaches of the Transparency Order. The application is subsequently stayed.
- Following his removal from home, FHR experiences serious deterioration in his physical health, including repeated hospital admissions, infections and episodes of sepsis. His family maintain that his condition and quality of life would improve if he were allowed to return home.
2026:
- March: At a ‘best interests’ meeting, FHR’s family and treating clinicians agree that continuing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration is in his best interests.
- July: FN applies for the Transparency Order to be lifted or varied so that the circumstances of the case can receive proper public scrutiny. Mr Justice McKendrick refuses the application.
- 17 August: A four-day final best-interests hearing begins at the Royal Courts of Justice. The NHS North East London Integrated Care Board asks the Court of Protection to rule that FHR should no longer receive the nutrition and hydration sustaining his life. During the hearing, neurorehabilitation expert Dr Judith Allanson gives evidence that FHR is not suffering from pain or distress and that there remains a possibility of improvement in his brain function. She reports seeing FHR smile when his father speaks to him about football and Arsenal. The court also hears evidence of what was described as an “emotional response” when FHR’s father speaks to him about God and prays with him. Dr Allanson recommends reviewing FHR’s sedative medication and considering his need for a tracheostomy before reaching a final assessment of his awareness.
- 26 August: Mr Justice McKendrick rules that clinically assisted nutrition and hydration should be withdrawn from FHR. The judge concludes that continued treatment is not in FHR’s best interests and authorises a move to palliative care. The judgment overrules the position previously agreed by FHR’s family and treating clinicians. FN says that she does not wish to prolong her son’s life artificially but wants him to be allowed to live and die naturally rather than have food and fluids withdrawn.
- 3 September: FN launches a public petition calling on Parliament and the Government to intervene and help prevent nutrition and hydration being withdrawn from her son.
- 18 September: The Court of Appeal grants a temporary stay preventing the implementation of the order while FN pursues her appeal.
- 23 September: Christian Concern reports that Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes – who also oversaw the case of our end-of-life client Robert Barnor – is due to oversee FHR’s transfer to the Regional Hyperacute Rehabilitation Unit and the withdrawal of his nutrition and hydration. Christian Legal Centre publicly calls for Professor Turner-Stokes to step aside while questions arising from her involvement in the separate case of Robert Barnor remain subject to a coroner’s investigation and forthcoming Supreme Court proceedings over Barnor’s case.
- September: The NHS North East London Integrated Care Board informs the family that the Regional Hyperacute Rehabilitation Unit wants a complete ban on contact between FN and her son while he receives end-of-life care at the unit.
Media coverage
Christian Concern coverage
Legal documents
Support FN and FHR
FN is receiving help from the Christian Legal Centre as she fights to protect her son’s life.
We provide this support completely free of charge to FN and others like her.
Make a donation today to help this work continue.