They accused Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) of putting "obstacles" in the way of Charlie's return home.
A judge will make a decision tomorrow on whether to allow Charlie Gard's parents to take him home to die.
She said the hospital had searched "the length and breadth of the country" for an intensive care specialist willing to oversee the care at home, but in vain.
Charlie, who suffers from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), is now being cared for at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.
"These are issues which cry out for settlement", Francis said.
"We have decided that it is no longer in Charlie's best interests to pursue treatment and we will let our son go and be with the angels", Charlie's father Chris said.
Grant Armstrong, counsel for Charlie's parents, said their last wish was to be able to take their son home but that they had been led to believe that transfer across London was "problematic".
Ms Gollop said the hospital had found an "excellent hospice" which would give Charlie and his parents the space, privacy and protection they needed.
"Charlie has suffered extensive muscular atrophy", Armstrong said in court.
The judge said any decision must avoid the risk of something going wrong at home, such as an accident involving removal of Charlie's ventilation tube.
Charlie suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare genetic disease, and can not breathe unassisted. He also has brain damage.
The court adjourned to allow further discussions to take place between the hospital doctors and the family's representatives.
Grace sets major championship record with 62 at British Open
I promise you", Grace added. "I was just grinding, grinding, and I just couldn't believe my final round, making so many birdies". Thirty-one golfers have carded a 63 in a major championship, most recently Henrik Stenson in last year's Open Championship.
"If we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children's rights", Kennedy concluded.
"If this prestigious hospital had listened to the parents, had heard and honored the parents, then we would not have been in the situation we were today", said Mahoney.
As Charlie's case made its way through the courts, global attention grew.
The hospital also raised concerns over Hirano's involvement, saying he had a financial interest in some of the compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie.
"I am sensing that timing is a lot of the problem here", said Justice Francis, who is presiding over the case. When his life support is scheduled to be removed is not yet known.
Why did Charlie's parents seek legal intervention?
The feverish commentary led the judge to criticize the effects of social media and those "who know nearly nothing about this case but who feel entitled to express opinions".
25 May: Court of Appeal judges dismiss the couple's appeal.
Leading pro-life advocates helped Charlie's parents fight for his life.
In all the uniquely hard circumstances of this case, the Court is asked to approve the hospice care plan for as long as that is on offer and, in the profoundly unwished for eventuality that the current offer is withdrawn, for end of life care to be provided at the hospital.
British courts and the European Court of Human Rights sided with the hospital.
Pope Francis and Donald Trump had offered their sympathies and any help. The 11-month-old has a rare genetic condition, and his parents want to take him to America to receive an experimental treatment.