Knill and Beckett (No 2)

This matter came before Gill J concerning a dispute between Mr Knill and his former partner, referred to as the Mother, regarding the medical treatment of their daughter, B. The primary dispute centred on the proposed medical interventions for B, specifically concerning her ears, nose, and throat.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the Mother could authorise medical treatment for B, including surgery, without the Father's consent. Additionally, the court needed to consider the Father's role in the medical decision-making process and whether any restrictions should be placed on his contact with medical professionals involved in B's care. The court also had to consider the information provided by the Father regarding B's health and his concerns about potential medical treatments.

Gill J reasoned that the existing orders of 21 December 2016 required modification to facilitate B's medical treatment. The court ordered that B be caused to attend an ear, nose, and throat specialist, and that the Mother be authorised to consent to treatment, including surgery, as recommended by that specialist. The Father's permission was explicitly stated as not being required for such treatment. The court further ordered that the Father be restrained from contacting the specialist and from attending upon B while she was hospitalised for treatment, pursuant to section 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The Father's provided information, Exhibit Chambers 1, was to be provided to the specialist, with a note that the specialist was not required to respond to the Father's requests for contact or discussion.