jurisdiction to ensure that a child who is the subject of proceedings is protected and properly taken care of. There is a presumption for transparency in these cases as the justified interference with article 8 rights of a minor will always require public scrutiny at some point. The law in respect of transparency in wardship and inherent jurisdiction cases is complex. The principles and provisions of the Children Act 1989 that are particularly relevant to this case are: the definitions of parental rights and responsibilities, the paramountcy and the definition of the child's best interests, the "no order" principle and the "no delay" principle In essence, GOSH had applied for a Specific Issue Order under section 8 of the Act to enable life support to be withdrawn. GOSH believed this to be in Charlie's best interests but his parents did not. The judge dealt with the case throughout by Declarations; at no stage of the proceedings was any Mandatory Order made. This caused problems both for GOSH, described in their later formal application of 7 Julysee below and for the Supreme Court.see below First directions hearings On 24 February 2017, GOSH asked the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. GOSH sought orders: That Charlie lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his medical treatment; That artificial ventilation be withdrawn; That it is lawful for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only; and That it is lawful, and in Charlie's best interests, not to undergo nucleoside therapy. The case came before the court on 3 March. It was then listed for final hearing on 3 April to enable the parents to file their evidence, and in particular to obtain evidence from the USA, as to the treatment that might possibly be available for Charlie. The parents were not automatically eligible for legal aid; it is unclear whether they would have been eligible under an exemption, but they did not apply to the Legal Aid Agency. They were represented by a pro bono legal team, which the judge later characterized as "experienced and dedicated" and as providing "excellent assistance". Charlie was joined as a party and a guardian ad litem was appointed under the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). In this way the first of GOSH's applications was granted by consent. Victoria Butler-Cole, a barrister, represented the guardian. The Telegraph later reported that the parents