Judge Nicholas Francis gave them until noon Thursday (local time) to come up with a plan, or he said Charlie would be transferred to hospice and soon disconnected from life support.

AD

AD

After deadline had passed, the judge approved that plan, saying that it “will inevitably result in Charlie’s death within a short period of time thereafter,” according to the Associated Press.

For many months, Charlie's parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have been fighting in court to keep their son alive.

But that battle — which has drawn sympathy and support from Pope Francis and President Trump, with hospitals in Rome and New York offering to help — is coming to an exhausting and emotional end.

Following Thursday's ruling, a spokesperson for Great Ormond Street Hospital called the months-long ordeal “a uniquely painful and distressing process” for everyone involved in it.

AD

“Charlie’s parents have tirelessly advocated for what they sincerely believed was right for their son, and nobody could fault them for doing so,” a hospital spokesperson said in a statement. “All of us at Great Ormond Street Hospital get up every morning to care for sick children, not to cause further anguish to devoted parents like Chris and Connie.”

AD

The hospital said it exhausted all options to try to accommodate the grieving parents' wishes for their son's final moments but that his “severe and complex needs” made it impossible.

“The risk of an unplanned and chaotic end to Charlie’s life is an unthinkable outcome for all concerned and would rob his parents of precious last moments with him,” the spokesperson said.

Great Ormond Street Hospital said it will arrange for Charlie's transfer to a children’s hospice that will “make these last moments as comfortable and peaceful as possible for Charlie and his loved-ones.”

On Monday, Charlie's parents gave up their battle in court, acknowledging that time had run out and that their son would die within days, not even living to see his first birthday on Aug. 4.

AD

“We are about to do the hardest thing we will ever have to do, which is to let our beautiful little Charlie go,” Gard said as he stood in front of the gothic stone of London’s High Court building alongside Yates. Both choked back tears, with onlookers openly weeping.

AD

Gard and Yates spent Tuesday trying to persuade the hospital and a judge to let them say goodbye to Charlie at home. Hospice was the second-best option, their attorney told a judge at a hearing.

Yates and Gard wanted Charlie with them at home several days before he received palliative care, according to the Mirror. They offered to pay for a mobile ventilator and medics so the infant could leave the hospital, according to the Sun. The hospital said Charlie's invasive ventilation was a significant obstacle to his parents' wishes. A complication could arise while he was being moved to his parents' home. And their front door may be too small for hospital equipment to fit through.

AD

Ultimately, Charlie's parents agreed that their son should die in hospice but wanted more time to say their goodbyes.

AD

It was the final dispute in an acrimonious and bitter legal battle that has brought global attention to Charlie’s plight.

The case has pitted the rights of Charlie’s parents to decide what’s best for their son against the obligations of doctors to spare the baby what they have described as a life defined only by pain and suffering.

Charlie was born in August with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a rare genetic condition and resulting brain damage that has robbed him of the ability to see, hear, move or breathe on his own. Weeks after birth, Charlie was struggling to hold up his head and was not gaining weight. At the 2-month mark, he had become lethargic, and his breathing had become shallow, court records show.

AD

The child was taken to Great Ormond Street Hospital, where he has remained since. Earlier this year, doctors concluded that nothing more could be done for him.

AD

His parents’ decision to stop their legal fight drew overwhelming expressions of commiseration and sorrow this week. Outside the court, protesters who labeled themselves “Charlie’s Army” reacted furiously to the announcement, chanting, “Shame on you, judge!” and “Shame on GOSH!”

The protesters have included activists from the United States, many of whom have seen the case as a galling instance of the state trampling on the wishes of parents who, above all, have wanted to give their child a chance.

AD

The hospital said it had received a “disgraceful tide of hostilities,” and even death threats, all of them directed at “doctors and nurses whose life's work is to care for sick children.”

But Claire Fenton-Glynn, who specializes in children’s rights as a law lecturer at the University of Cambridge, said the hospital and courts had behaved appropriately — carefully considering the parents’ arguments but, in the end, deciding what is best for Charlie.

“It’s the role of the state and the courts to make an objective assessment of where the child’s best interests lie,” she said. “It’s a devastating case on a human level. On a legal level, it’s not as controversial.”

AD

In the end, Charlie's parents said they gave up on their court fight because the doctor who pioneered the experimental treatment believed it was no longer viable for Charlie, who was too far gone.

Speaking in front of a phalanx of news cameras outside the courthouse Monday, Gard and Yates said they planned to retreat from the public eye so they could spend “our last precious moments with our son.”

The last words of their tear-filled statement were for him:

“To Charlie, we say: Mummy and Daddy, we love you so much. We always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn't save you. Sweet dreams, baby.”