Re: Addison (No. 2)
[2021] FamCA 582
•20 April 2021
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Re: Addison (No. 2) [2021] FamCA 582
File number(s): File number has been suppressed Judgment of: HOWARD J Date of judgment: 20 April 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – MEDICAL PROCEDURES – application for subject child to be present during course of proceedings pursuant to s.100B of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) –where the subject child is sufficiently mature to be present during any hearing of these proceedings – leave granted Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 100B Cases cited: Re Shane (Gender Dysphoria) [2013] FamCA 864
Re Jordan [2015] FamCA 175
Re Lucas [2016] FamCA 1129
Number of paragraphs: 8 Date of last submission/s: 20 April 2021 Date of hearing: 20 April 2021 Representation: The names of legal practitioners have been suppressed ORDERS
BETWEEN: THE MOTHER
Applicant
AND: INDEPENDENT CHILDREN'S LAWYER
ORDER MADE BY:
HOWARD J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 APRIL 2021
THE COURT ORDERS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER:
1.That pursuant to section 100B(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), leave is granted for the child Addison born … 2004 to be present in the Courtroom during these proceedings, whether in person or by way of electronic means.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Re Addison has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A. These reasons were delivered ex tempore on 20 April 2021 and have been settled and corrected for grammatical errors in order to convey the precise intention of the Court.
HOWARD J:
The matter before the Court was commenced last week on 13 April 2021, and I delivered ex tempore reasons for judgment which were read into the record again today for the benefit of the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”) and her counsel, whom I appointed on 13 April 2021 for the child in these proceedings, whose name is Addison. Addison was born in 2004, and Addison has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Stage 1 treatment has commenced. Stage 2 treatment is proposed. The Court’s authorisation for stage 2 treatment is required because the father has not yet been joined to the proceedings. He has not been given any notice of the proceedings.
The child has expressed wishes and views to Dr B, the psychiatrist. The child wishes to go ahead with stage 2 treatment. The child is 16 years old. The mother of the child, the applicant, supports the child and supports the stage 2 treatment, and orders were made last week for the appointment of an ICL. That order also indicated (by way of notations) that the Court would consider a number of issues, including the question of the ex parte nature of the application and, in addition, whether or not the child would be permitted to attend the proceedings.
There are a large number of cases to which my attention has been drawn where the child has been permitted to attend the proceedings. Those cases include Re Shane (Gender Dysphoria) [2013] FamCA 864, Re Jordan [2015] FamCA 175 and Re Lucas [2016] FamCA 1129.
As I pointed out last week, there did not appear to be any controversy in those cases as to the diagnosis, nor was there controversy between the parents.
In the case that is currently before the Court, the Court has some particular evidence from a psychiatrist, Dr B, who interviewed the child Addison and was impressed by Addison’s maturity. In particular, in the affidavit of Dr B filed on 6 April 2021, paragraph 52 states as follows:
During the interview on 12 November 2020, Addison demonstrated a maturity that in my opinion can be explained by his need to parent and raise himself as essentially an only child with a mother with protracted mental health issues and an abusive and dominant father who no longer has contact with Addison following a DVO. Addison is self-driven and determined with his interests in writing, online research in his topic of interests such as medical and surgical transitioning for gender diversity and video games as a socially reclusive transgender adolescent male with family challenges and gender dysphoria.
The question I posed for counsel this morning was whether or not Addison should be present before the Court decided the question of the ex parte nature of the application, and the Court has been urged by counsel for the ICL, and by counsel for the mother, for the Court to make an order to permit Addison to be present during the hearing of the application for the matter to proceed ex parte.
And I apprehend, of course, whatever the outcome of that application is, it is also sought that the child be permitted to be present during the hearing of the substantive application for the orders sought concerning stage 2 treatment. I did point out last week, and I mentioned earlier in these reasons just now, that in some of the cases to which I was taken there was no controversy between the parents in relation to treatment and there was agreement between the parents on diagnosis, etcetera.
Having regard to the evidence, I am satisfied that this child’s level of maturity is such that it is appropriate for Addison to be present for the hearing of this application, in particular, when I take into account the very personal nature of the case and the sensitive nature of the case so far as Addison is concerned. I will pause then now, and request that the child be permitted to now enter the room, where his mother is, and listen to the next stage of the proceedings.
I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Howard. Associate:
Dated: 6 August 2021
0
3
1