Child And Adolescent Health Service and Chief Executive Officer Of Department Of Communities & Ors

[2025] FCWA 225

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CHILD AND ADOLESCENT HEALTH SERVICE and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES & ORS [2025] FCWA 225

CORAM: O'BRIEN J

HEARD: 12 SEPTEMBER 2025

DELIVERED : Ex tempore

FILE NO/S: 5876 of 2025

BETWEEN: CHILD AND ADOLESCENT HEALTH SERVICE

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES

First Respondent

AND

MR EDWARDS

Second Respondent

AND

MS TORRES

Third Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILD WELFARE - Where the father opposes continuation of child's chemotherapy treatment and seeks to remove child from hospital - Where the father adheres to beliefs as to the causes and treatment of cancer informed by his own research - Where the evidence of treating doctors is that cessation of chemotherapy will almost certainly cause the child to die - Injunctions granted - Turns on its own facts.

CHILD PROTECTION - Where proceedings on foot both in this court and in the Children's Court - Orders made to continue protection once proceedings in Children's Court discontinued.

Legislation:

Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA)
Family Court Act 1997 (WA)

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms J Buller
First Respondent	:	Ms J Abbott
Second Respondent	:	In Person
Third Respondent	:	Mr R Bannerman
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Ms C Smith

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	State Solicitor's Office
First Respondent	:	Department of Communities
Second Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Third Respondent	:	Bannerman Solicitors
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Legal Aid Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Child and Adolescent Health Service and Chief Executive Officer of

Department of Communities & Ors [2025] FCWA 174

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Child and Adolescent Health Service and Chief Executive Officer of Department of Communities & Ors has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 236B(2) of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 312(b) Family Court Rules 2021 (WA)), or to record a variation to the orders pursuant to r 311 Family Court Rules 2021 (WA).

Part 11A of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

1[Child A], who was born [in] 2012, is the son of [Mr Edwards] ("the father") and [Ms Torres] ("the mother"). He has been diagnosed with [redacted] leukaemia and is an inpatient at [Hospital A] ("[Hospital A]"), undergoing intensive treatment.[1]

[1] The father has indicated that both his surname and Child A's are spelled "[redacted]". No birth certificate for Child A is presently filed. I adopt the spelling used in the documents filed and orders made to date both in this court and in the Children's Court, and mean no disrespect to the father and Child A in doing so.

2Child A is an inpatient because of steps taken by the Department of Communities ("the Department") when it became aware of concerns as to his access to treatment. [In July] 2025 he was taken into provisional protection and care by a relevant officer pursuant to s 37 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA). The Department subsequently, and as required by the Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA), made a protection application in the Children's Court of Western Australia and has subsequently made an application in this court.

3The Child and Adolescent Health Service ("CAHS") is responsible for the operations of Hospital A. It commenced proceedings in this court [in] July 2025, seeking orders to secure Child A’s access to treatment in circumstances where the father, in particular, was resistant to it. Orders were made by the Chief Judge that day to secure Child A's treatment in the short term and adjourning the proceedings to [a date later in] July 2025, so that the mother and father could respond to them.[2]

[2] During the proceedings the father has expressed strong views as to terminology and references used for individuals. He does not recognise the appellation "Mr" or any similar title. He rejects any reference to himself or the mother as a "parent", explaining that [Child A] is their property and they do not "pay rent" for him.

4Further issues arose, as detailed in my judgment published on 28 July 2025,[3] which I incorporate in these Reasons. In short, the hospital staff reported that the father had removed Child A's intravenous line through which chemotherapy was being administered, apparently having cut it, and taped the end of that line into a urine bottle. The treatment fluids which should have been entering Child A's system were instead being discharged into that bottle. The father had made it clear that he did not consent to Child A receiving chemotherapy and police became involved. He has subsequently been charged with a criminal offence of endangering Child A's life, health or safety as a result of that action.

[3] Child and Adolescent Health Service and Chief Executive Officer of Department of Communities & Ors [2025] FCWA 174.

5Orders were made to secure Child A's ongoing treatment and to restrain the father from interfering in it. The parties were given liberty to seek a relisting to vary or set aside those orders at short notice; they have not done so.

6The matter comes before the Court today for two reasons. Having commenced proceedings in the Children's Court, the Department commenced a protection and care application in this court [in] August 2025. An interim order for Child A to remain in provisional protection and care was sought, pending a final order in the form of a protection order limited to a period of two years. The application was listed to the hearing this morning for directions only, because by orders made in the Children's Court [in] August 2025, an interim hearing was listed in that court [in early] September 2025 to determine the separate applications of Child A's parents for him to be placed in their care.

7The application of CAHS in this court, having previously been adjourned, was relisted urgently to this morning's hearing after an application in a case was lodged late yesterday. CAHS seeks further interim injunctive relief to secure Child A's treatment in circumstances outlined later in these Reasons. Those circumstances came to a head on 8 September 2025. As will appear, they have informed the determination by the Department that it will not discontinue the protection proceedings it has commenced but will seek to have them continue in this court.

8The father appeared at the hearing this morning. The mother was represented by solicitors. I took steps at the commencement of the hearing to ensure that both had received the documents filed by CAHS yesterday. The matter was stood down to afford the father the opportunity to read the documents before making any submission.

The evidence and submissions

The Child and Adolescent Health Service

9CAHS relied on an affidavit sworn yesterday by [Dr C], a consultant paediatrician who is currently [a Head of Department] at Hospital A.

10Dr C confirms that Child A commenced his first cycle of chemotherapy on 24 July 2025. That cycle was completed on 3 August 2025 and was followed by a recovery period of supportive care. That supportive care involves ongoing treatment, albeit not chemotherapy; by way of example, daily administration of antifungal medication and daily review are critical.

11Child A is responding well to his treatment but will, on Dr C's evidence, require three more cycles of consolidation chemotherapy. He commenced his second cycle of intravenous chemotherapy on 9 September 2025, and must remain an inpatient in an isolated room, with a high level of precautions against infections and the like. He may continue to need analgesia, nutritional support, intravenous antifungal treatment and antibiotics, and blood products support. It is possible that he will require admission to paediatric intensive care.

12Dr C says that the five-year overall survival for childhood [redacted] leukaemia is around 65 to 70 percent with the completion of four cycles of intensive multiagent chemotherapy, but that the chances of event free and overall survival depend on the completion of the full chemotherapy protocol, which must be delivered without undue delay. Without consolidation chemotherapy, the risk of relapse is very high, and [redacted] leukaemia is "universally fatal without standard multiagent chemotherapy."

13Dr C indicated her awareness that the mother had filed an application in the Children's Court for an interim order placing Child A in the care of his parents; that is the matter that was before that court [in early] September 2025. Dr C placed into evidence a copy of a letter dated 29 August 2025 setting out the concerns of the relevant staff at Hospital A at the prospect of parental responsibility for decision-making regarding Child A returning to the parents. The letter confirmed that since 11 August 2025, Child A's contact with the father has been fully supervised by an officer of the Department, and that a safety plan had been put in place to enable Child A to be temporarily discharged to stay at Ronald McDonald house with his parents before resuming chemotherapy.

14The staff expressed their concern that the statements made by the parents to the effect that they now agreed with Child A's treatment plan had not been tested. They pointed out that the father had previously made statements to the same effect, before disconnecting Child A's chemotherapy line. They expressed concern at the dynamic between the parents, and the father influencing Child A to resist treatment and be demonstrative in his refusal of it.

15The staff expressed concern at a perceived risk that the parents may try to remove Child A from the metropolitan area, from [the State] or from the country, noting that they both hold citizenship of other countries.

16Attached to Dr C's affidavit were various clinical notes, including notes recording the concerns expressed by Child A's parents and the strong opinions as to medical matters expressed by the father based on his own views and research.

17Child A had been discharged from Hospital A to the care of his parents for the period [date redacted] September 2025 until [date redacted] September 2025, a respite period between courses of chemotherapy, on conditions set out in a safety plan developed by the Department. That plan required compliance with all medical directions, and daily attendance with Child A at the hospital for the administration of medication and for him to be reviewed. It required Child A to be returned to hospital for his next round of chemotherapy, likely to commence on 9 September 2025, and for immediate return to the hospital if he demonstrated any of a number of listed symptoms. The parents and Child A were to stay at Ronald McDonald house and maintain communication with the staff there. They were also to maintain a daily health log and share updates with the treating medical staff.

18On 8 September 2025, the father attended with Child A at Hospital A as scheduled. He refused to consent to Child A receiving required antifungal treatment or any other procedure and presented staff with a "notice". The mother attended part way through the conversation and said that she wanted what was best for Child A but could not express her true views as there would be negative consequences for their family. Both parents said words to the effect that they did not consent to, but would not obstruct treatment steps. The father reiterated his strong objections to ongoing treatment, his concern as to the presence of security staff, and emphasised his own research and evolving views.

19At one point, the father expressed to Hospital staff his intention to leave the hospital with Child A, return home and heal in accordance with the precepts of what is described as the "German New Medicine."

20Also annexed to the affidavit of Dr C was a copy of the "notice" document produced by the father, dated 30 August 2025, and presented to hospital staff on 8 September 2025. That document is reproduced in full below:

Notice

date: 30 August 2025

woman: [name redacted]

to the man: [name redacted]; who at times acts as the CEO at [hospital a] and to the woman: [name redacted]; who at times acts as doctor and any of mankind acting under your authority;

i: a man; [mr edwards]; state that my consent must be given for any medical treatment and or procedure including but not limited to chemotherapy and or vaccination and or medical test intended to be given to i, or the property of i,

i, also write this notice in relation to my son [child a] and daughter [child b]; being the property of i, a man;

i, state that i, consider any medical treatment; vaccines or medical tests of any kind to be a choice and believe they may cause i, and those in the care of i, harm;

i, state that any attempt to force and or coheres[4] i, or those in the care of i, to receive medical treatment, vaccination and or medical tests; against the will of i, will be seen as trespass by way of harm;

i, state that i, will require remedy of 10 million australian dollars for each such trespass and 1 dollar per second that the medical treatment; vaccination and or medical tests remains in the body of i, or the body of a son and daughter of i,

i, state that i, will hold any man or woman who does trespass against i, or a son and daughter of i, accountable as a man or woman at a court of law before a trial by jury;

if you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice please contact i, at the address below;

i, state all herein be true and will verify at open court;

sincerely;

by: [mr edwards], a man.

[mobile number redacted]

[address redacted]

[4] This word is circled in the original.

21In response, hospital staff consulted with the Department, and Child A was immediately readmitted as an inpatient. It was agreed that the mother could stay with him and that the father would not be present at the commencement of his next round of chemotherapy the following day.

22In short, CAHS submits that the various injunctions sought in its application are necessary to secure Child A's ongoing access to the treatment he needs and to protect him from interference in that treatment or from being encouraged by his parents to decline or resist it. The latter point is raised in the context of Dr C's observation as to the potential detrimental impacts on Child A's mental well-being arising from his exposure to misinformation and being instructed by the father both to record his interactions with staff, and to himself produce the "notice" prepared by his father.

23The detailed orders sought still contemplate the possibility of the hospital agreeing to Child A being discharged for defined periods of time on stringent conditions, including compliance with a safety plan, notwithstanding the events of last week.

24Counsel for CAHS appropriately acknowledged that procedural fairness requires that the parents have the opportunity to respond and put on evidence in relation to the application presently brought. She accepted that in those circumstances, only those orders necessary to secure Child A's position, safety and treatment pending a further hearing should be made. In that context, she acknowledged that subject to one modification the interim orders proposed by the Independent Children's Lawyer ("ICL") would meet the immediate need.

The Department of Communities

25The Department is, for obvious reasons, the applicant in the pending protection application brought under the Children and Community Services Act 2004 (WA). It is a respondent to the separate application brought by CAHS under the child welfare provisions of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA).

26While the Court has received no communication from the Department since its application was filed [in] August 2025, helpfully the ICL provided relevant information late last night. Counsel appearing for the Department this morning confirmed the accuracy of that information.

27The proceedings in the Children's Court were last before that court [in early] September 2025 for an interim hearing on the mother's application for an interim order that Child A be returned to the care of his parents. An oral application was made in similar terms by the father. The Department sought an adjournment of those applications to [mid] September 2025, in order to monitor what was then Child A's brief period of discharge from hospital and, if no issues arose, to withdraw that application. The learned Magistrate declined to make the interim order sought by the mother and the father, and adjourned the proceedings to a further hearing before himself on the afternoon of [mid] September 2025. He did so in the context of an indication by the Department that if no issues arose over that discharge period, interim orders would not be sought in this court today.

28After the events of 8 September 2025, the Department has revised its position. It now intends to pursue an interim order in this court for Child A to remain in provisional protection and care and a final time‑limited protection order. It proposes for the sake of certainty that orders be made today that Child A remain in provisional protection and care; on that basis, it would then discontinue the proceedings in the Children's Court, including what would very briefly be a parallel order for that provisional protection and care.

The father

29The father and mother have not adduced any evidence in the proceedings in this court to date. They have not sought any relisting to set aside or vary the orders previously made. I acknowledge, of course, that their personal and emotional resources would understandably be focused on Child A and his circumstances, and on the care of each other and their daughter.

30The father attended the registry of this court yesterday and tendered a bundle of documents. While those documents are not formally in evidence, in the circumstances just described and in fairness to the father, I have reviewed them so as to inform myself as to his position in the matter. At the hearing this morning, I confirmed with the father that the documents reflected the matters he would wish the Court to consider. While the documents had not been provided to the other parties, I briefly summarised them for their benefit and the father confirmed his acceptance of the accuracy of that summary. He made submissions by reference to those documents.

31The first bundle of documents are notes provided to the parents by Hospital A setting out possible side-effects of medications which are being administered to Child A. The second bundle of documents are what are described by the father as character references. They comprise some 55 letters and emails from friends and associates of the family, primarily addressed to the relevant Magistrate in the Children's Court, attesting to the personal qualities of the parents, and to the quality of their care of Child A and his sister.

32The third bundle is a document headed "German New Medicine" and entitled "The Five Biological Laws." It was apparently presented by a Dr Hamer[5] at the First International Congress on Complementary and Alternative Medical Cancer Treatment in Spain in 2005. In its introduction, the presentation is self-described as "the greatest gift the Gods have ever given to mankind" while acknowledging that the author was at that time "detained in a French prison" for reasons associated with its practice. The Five Biological Laws are said to be "applicable in equal measure to human beings, animals and plants, even to single celled creatures – in fact they apply to the entire cosmos." The "Iron Rule of Cancer" is described as having three criteria, and biological laws are described. By way of example only, the document asserts that "a most important criterion in the German New Medicine is the handedness of the patient," as the appropriate response to medical conditions described (including cancer) will differ depending on whether the patient is right-handed or left-handed.

[5] It appears from the document that the author's entitlement to practice medicine has long been revoked by the relevant authorities.

33The document expresses the author's opinion that radiation therapy is "totally useless" and that "selling chemo treatment as a therapy is most likely the biggest fraud in the entire history of medicine", going on to say that "whoever masterminded this chemical torture as 'therapy' deserves a monument in hell."

34In his submissions the father emphasised that German New Medicine postulates that undiagnosed and untreated trauma can cause cancer. He referred to the trauma Child A suffered when injured in a fall from a considerable height, and separate trauma from the bushfires in the [Regional Town A] area which threatened his home in [year redacted]. It may be inferred that he would hold that those traumas caused or at least contributed to Child A's leukemia. Indeed, the father referred to German New Medicine describing leukaemia as a "self-devaluation conflict."

35The fourth bundle of documents may be broadly described as purported peer reviews of, and endorsements of, "German New Medicine".

36The father's earlier statements to the effect that he had only interfered with Child A's chemotherapy treatment because he and the mother had been given inadequate time to consider the recommendations made by the hospital, and that on reflection he was supportive of chemotherapy continuing, may fairly be viewed against the background of the documents just described having been submitted by him to the Court yesterday. In submissions he acknowledged his earlier statements while saying he has changed his mind having undertaken further research.

37I asked the father to make clear to me his position in relation to the orders sought by CAHS. As anticipated, his firm position is that Child A should be immediately returned to the care of his mother and father, and that they should have sole decision-making responsibility as to all aspects of his life. In that sense, he says that the provisional protection order should be discharged and the application of the Department dismissed. Further, he maintains that Child A should not receive chemotherapy and the associated treatments currently recommended by the treating doctors at Hospital A, and that he and the mother should be at liberty to remove Child A from hospital and take him home immediately, and without the delay expense and stress associated with further court hearings. Accordingly, his clear position is that the application of CAHS should also be dismissed.

The mother

38While the mother has not placed any evidence or other materials before the Court, she was represented at this morning's hearing by counsel. Her position may be shortly expressed for the purposes of today's hearing. She maintains that Child A should be returned to the care of both parents, and that they should be solely responsible for decision-making about him. She shares many, but not all, of the father's views and her counsel made it clear that her position should be considered independently. She sought the opportunity to file responding documents and evidence, saying that she could do so within a week.

39The mother supported the proposition that any proceedings should continue in this court, rather than the parties having to navigate parallel proceedings in two courts.

40Without resiling in any sense from her primary position, the mother accepted that the Court would likely consider it appropriate to maintain the provisional protection arrangements, and make orders to ensure that Child A's treatment continues, pending any adjourned hearing. That said, she resisted the proposition that any orders should be made restraining her in the same terms as those proposed to restrain the father. Her counsel drew a clear distinction between her interactions with hospital staff and those of the father. He submitted that there was no evidentiary basis upon which an injunction should be granted, and that the mother's ongoing interactions with hospital staff could be adversely affected by the perception created by the making of an order.

41I raised with counsel the possibility that in those circumstances his client might give an enforceable undertaking in the same or similar terms to the proposed orders. Upon instructions, and with one reasonable exception, that undertaking was given. Counsel confirmed that a formal written undertaking in those terms will be prepared and will be filed after the mother meets with her lawyers next week.

The Independent Children's Lawyer

42The ICL filed a Minute of Proposed Interim Orders overnight. She proposes a continuation of Child A's provisional protection and care in the short term. She proposes a raft of injunctions broadly consistent with those set out in the application filed yesterday by CAHS. As already noted, after conferral, counsel for CAHS accepted the proposition that pending a further hearing, and with only minor modifications, the orders proposed by the ICL were appropriate and the further orders proposed by CAHS need not be made at this stage.

Disposition

43I am comfortably persuaded that orders and injunctions necessary to secure Child A's ongoing treatment should be made. Given the difficulties associated with the fact that there are concurrent proceedings in this court and the Children's Court, and the short notice with which the application of CAHS has come before this court, the orders to be made today will be limited to those necessary to secure the position in the short-term. That will afford the father and mother the opportunity to make any further application they may wish to make, or to submit proper evidence.

44The father's actions to date, the materials upon which he sought to rely today, and his submissions make it very clear that absent those protections he will remove Child A from hospital, discontinue his chemotherapy treatment, and take him home to Regional Town A. He would then propose to nurture Child A with biodynamic food, sunshine and fresh air, combined with the care of family. He said that if Child A deteriorated, he and the mother would want the option to reengage with the hospital. In short, the evidence to date does not support any confidence that they would do so. The evidence of Dr C that continuing chemotherapy is essential to Child A's sustained recovery, notwithstanding the positive results so far, need not be repeated. The father's belief that the pleasing results of Child A's most recent lumbar puncture indicate that he requires no further chemotherapy, and that the recommendations of the hospital are simply based in a mindless and strict adherence to a protocol rather than individualised treatment, is not supported by the evidence.

45For immediate purposes, any proper differentiation between the views and actions of the father and the mother does not inform the steps to be taken. That is so, as the relationship between those parties remains intact, and they both agree that the plan they would advance is to return with Child A to their home in Regional Town A, and care for him together.

46I propose to make orders in terms of the Minute filed by the ICL, with minor exceptions.

47I accept the undertaking of the mother in terms of certain of the orders sought and do not propose to make orders directed to her in the same terms.

48I accept the submission of counsel for the mother that the proposed injunction restraining the father and mother from discussing the court proceedings with or in Child A's presence or within the hearing of Child B is unrealistic in the circumstances. Child A is already aware of the conflict and is no doubt aware at least in general terms that there are court proceedings on foot. He has expressed his own views, and will ask questions of the father and mother as to why he is remaining in hospital and continuing to receive chemotherapy. I accept that, within reason, those questions should be answered honestly.

49The difficulties associated with the concurrent proceedings need to be addressed, primarily by the Department. I was assured by counsel that the necessary steps will be taken at the next hearing in the Children's Court [in mid] September 2025.

50The father and mother will now need to file appropriate documents in this court to address the pending applications which they seek to resist. They will each need to file a formal response in the form available on the court's website, and any affidavit upon which they would intend to rely. I make it clear for the benefit of the father that, notwithstanding the reference made by him and in these Reasons to documents presented by him to the Court Registry yesterday, those documents are not in evidence. He would do well to seek legal advice, including as to the requirements of proven expertise for opinion evidence to be admissible or afforded any weight.

51Orders pronounced.

These reasons are the reasons for decision delivered on 12 September 2025 edited in places but only as to correct grammatical errors and some infelicity of expression without variation to the substance thereof.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Family Court of Western Australia.

KM

Associate

15 SEPTEMBER 2025