Q&A: HIV fugitive father

BBC News Online examines the case of the father battling to prevent his daughter being given conventional HIV treatment.

What are the issues involved in this complex situation?

---

Why did he take his daughter out of the country?

The 39-year-old, who can't be named, decided, with his HIV-positive partner, to leave the country with their four-month-old child in 1999.

They had been ordered to have the child tested for HIV by the High Court, a move they fiercely opposed.

The court had heard that, despite the mother's HIV diagnosis, she did not take drugs during pregnancy to reduce the chance of passing on the virus, or abstain from breastfeeding.

Why did the couple oppose the HIV test?

Both were firm advocates of alternative medicine - he is a reflexologist and complementary therapist.

They dispute the link between HIV and Aids, the illnesses the vast majority of doctors say it causes.

They believed that, if the HIV test on their daughter proved positive, further action would force the use of powerful antiretroviral therapy.

The father says this is akin to chemotherapy to cancer - a potent drug which could prove highly toxic to his daughter.

The majority of experts reject this approach, saying that the effects of HIV far outweigh the risks of treatment.

What are the legal issues?

Technically, parental consent is required in most instances in which doctors wish to give medical treatment of any kind to a child.

The informed judgement of a parent should still, in theory, outweigh the opinion of a doctor.

However, this has become an increasingly grey area, particularly in cases in which there is evidence that failing to treat a condition would place a child in danger.

In some cases, the courts have decided that this is equivalent to child abuse or neglect on the part of the parent.

Doctors and social services departments have intervened more frequently to ask courts to sanction treatments and operations against the parents' wishes.

Another recent, high profile case involved the conjoined twins "Jodie and Mary".

The parents opposed any attempt at separation, despite the fact that this would surely kill both babies.

The High Court ruled that Jodie should be sacrificed to save Mary.

How did the Australian authorities become involved?

In October 2001 the girl's mother became seriously ill, and needed to be admitted to hospital in Australia, where the family had been living for more than two years.

Because they were not Australian citizens, and had overstayed their visa, their true identity was uncovered.

When the mother died, the hospital already had a sample of the daughter's blood taken for another purpose. This was tested for HIV.

When the test came back positive, Australian social services became involved and began action to both compel treatment, and remove the child from the father's care.

The present custody hearing is part of this ongoing process.

What rights does the father have in Australia?

Australian social services have the right to act for any child resident in that country, and as such, are treating the child as they would an Australian infant in the same position.

The father actually now wishes to return to the UK, feeling that he would be treated more sympathetically than in Australia.

He wants to fly back to Britain, but the Australian authorities are legally entitled to apply for custody of the girl so that treatment can begin.

What will happen to them if they do return to the UK?

The man believes that he will not face any punishment for breaching the 1999 court order by leaving the country.

In fact, he says that he expects no immediate attempt by the UK authorities to remove the child from his custody.

However, there is no guarantee that this will not happen - this is partly dependent on the attitude of the social services department in whatever area they end up moving to.

He plans to mount an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, saying that the demands for both a test, and now treatment violate his right to family life.