I say again, it is not 100% clear to me that he is categorically referring to BT. He is not quoted as that. The Mirror, as a tabloid, have sensationalised what he is quoted as saying. Of course, I don't know his mind so he could full well be referring to BT or including BT in general "you do what you have to" type statements. The point is that it could well be a 2+2=5 misapplication by The Mirror.
Don't forget as well that the family have undergone a public and unusual situation. He could equally have been referring to the actions they took and indicating that these were nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Again, the article is not clear on the context of the statement.
Regardless...
You cannot be disfellowshipped for have a BT. You are viewed, if you are unrepentant, as have disassociated yourself by your actions. I have to say I am not 100% sure what the situation is for a parent who allows a child to have a BT but I know that there are cases of tacit approval for indicating that the authorities make the child a ward of court (or local equivilent) thus dissolving the parents of the responsibility.
Of course, one can be disfellowshipped for "brazen conduct" and if one was to keep repeating opposition to the blood teaching then they would likely face a JC.
I suspect in this case, the elders will keep well away from the subject until the fate of the child and publicity has died down. Someone will then have a quiet word to double check the circumstances and put any contentiousness down to "stress". As others have mentioned, the WTS is not keen to have it's policy over blood and children raked up in the national press.
Someone discreetly lift up the carpet please...
{EDIT}
In my original post it says a parent can be DFed for allowing a child to have a BT. I meant "cannot".
If a parent was to be DFed after such an incident it would almost certainly be along the lines of "brazen conduct" over a vary vocal and critical attitude about it.
I am 99% sure a parent would not be viewed as DAed
