The mother of 11-month-old Charlie Gard returned to court Tuesday to plead for him to be allowed to die peacefully at home - a day after she and her husband dropped their legal battle to keep the boy alive.
Connie Yates, left, is asked the High Court to rule that she and Chris Gard should be allowed to take their son home from Great Ormond Street Hospital.
Charlie was born with a rare genetic condition which causes progressive muscle weakness.
Yesterday Connie Yates and Chris Gard abandoned their legal action to take 11-month-old Charlie to the U.S. for treatment.
"The parents' wish is to take Charlie home", Armstrong told the court.
Barrister Grant Armstrong, who leads the couple's legal team, suggested to Mr Justice Francis that hospital bosses were placing obstacles in Charlie's parents' way. In circumstances where there is a dispute between parents and the hospital, it was essential that Charlie was himself independently represented and a guardian was therefore appointed to represent Charlie so that there was someone who could independently report to the court as to what was in his best interests.
The case won worldwide attention after Charlie's parents received support from Pope Francis, U.S. President Donald Trump and some members of the U.S. Congress.More news: Wendy Austin joins calls for gender equality
More news: Iraqi Minister arrives on India visit, talks to focus on missing Indians
More news: New Game of Thrones trailer teases Daenerys and Jon's first meeting
Gard's parents made their wishes clear in a court hearing held a day after they chose to end their lengthy legal battle to prolong his life.
She said providing intensive care to Charlie outside a hospital setting was not simple.
It remained unclear exactly when Charlie's life support would be removed. The parents were given the test results from Charlie's most recent scans on Friday. Yesterday, the hospital consulted the Director of Specialised Commissioning NHSE London who stated that it would not be possible to transfer Charlie whilst invasively ventilated for end of life care at home.
English courts and the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the healing center. Doctors at Great Ormond Street opposed that, saying it would not help and could cause Charlie more suffering.
Mr Justice Francis said: 'These are issues which cry out for settlement'.
Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) argued that Charlie's condition had progressed too far, and that no specialists could help him.
The hospital said Charlie's end-of-life care must be safe, spare the baby all pain and must protect his dignity, while at the same time honouring his parents' wishes about the time and place of his passing.
See, the American right has a political problem, and they hoped this dying baby could fix it. Conservatives are struggling to square their claims to be "pro-life" with the fact that they support Republican efforts to strip millions of people of their health care coverage, a plan that would also slash Medicaid funding that covers medical expenses for 60 percent of disabled children.