Re: Bobbie - [2017] FamCA 974

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: BOBBIE

[2017] FamCA 974

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Medical Procedures – Gender Dysphoria – Applicant parents seek order that child is competent to consent to stage 2 and stage 3 treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Applicants seek alternative order that they be authorised to consent to the administration of stage 2 and stage 3 treatment for the child – Whether child is Gillick competent – Where there is deficient evidence to conclude child is Gillick competent – Where applicants pressed for them being authorised to consent to treatment for the child –Where parents and child’s treating medical practitioners are unanimously of the view that treatment and procedure are in the child’s best interests – Where it is in the child’s best interests to undergo stage 2 and stage 3 treatment.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121(9)

Re: Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547
Gillick v West Norfolk AHA [1968] AC 112
Secretary, Department of Health & Community Services v JWB & SMB (“Marion’s Case”) (1991-1992) 175 CLR 218
Re: Darryl [2016] FamCA 720
Re: Lincoln (No 2) (2016) FamCA 1071

FIRST APPLICANT:

The Mother

SECOND APPLICANT:

The Father

FILE NUMBER:

By Court Order File number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED:

29 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the name of solicitors have been suppressed

Orders

The applicant parents are authorised to consent to stage two treatment for Bobbie born … 2001 for the condition called Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults, comprising the administration of testosterone in such manner and with such frequency as may be determined by his treating medical practitioners from time to time, and stage three treatment for that condition, being the surgical removal of his breasts.
(a) The full name of Bobbie, his family members, his hospital, his medical practitioners, his school, this Court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, and any other fact or matter which may identify Bobbie, shall not be published in any way; and
(b)Only anonymised reasons for judgment and orders (with cover sheets excluding the Registry, file number and lawyer names and details as well as the parties’ real names) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without further contrary order of a Judge.
To the extent that the exception in s 121(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) does not otherwise authorise it, the applicant parents and Bobbie have leave to publish to Bobbie’s treating practitioners a copy of these orders which are not anonymised pursuant to order 2 hereof.
No person be permitted to search the Court file in this matter without first obtaining leave of a Judge.
Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed and the matter is removed from the list of active pending cases.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re: Bobbie

Details

AGLC: Re: Bobbie [2017] FamCA 974
Case: [2017] FamCA 974
Decision Date: 29 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Re: Bobbie*, heard before Tree J, the applicant parents sought authorisation to consent to stage two and stage three medical treatment for their child, Bobbie, who was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults. The dispute concerned the capacity of the parents to consent to such treatment, which included the administration of testosterone and the surgical removal of Bobbie's breasts.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant parents had the authority to consent to the proposed medical interventions for Bobbie, given the nature of the treatments and the age of the child. This involved considerations of parental responsibility, the best interests of the child, and the legal framework governing medical treatment for minors, particularly in the context of gender dysphoria.

Tree J reasoned that the parents were authorised to consent to stage two treatment, comprising the administration of testosterone, and stage three treatment, involving the surgical removal of Bobbie's breasts. The Court made orders to protect Bobbie's privacy, prohibiting the publication of any identifying information and requiring anonymised reasons for judgment to be released. The Court also granted leave for the applicant parents and Bobbie to provide unanonymised copies of the orders to Bobbie's treating practitioners, to the extent not already authorised by the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). All other pending applications were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant parents are authorised to consent to stage two treatment for Bobbie born … 2001 for the condition called Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults, comprising the administration of testosterone in such manner and with such frequency as may be determined by his treating medical practitioners from time to time, and stage three treatment for that condition, being the surgical removal of his breasts.

(a) The full name of Bobbie, his family members, his hospital, his medical practitioners, his school, this Court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, and any other fact or matter which may identify Bobbie, shall not be published in any way; and

(b) Only anonymised reasons for judgment and orders (with cover sheets excluding the Registry, file number and lawyer names and details as well as the parties’ real names) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without further contrary order of a Judge.

To the extent that the exception in s 121(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) does not otherwise authorise it, the applicant parents and Bobbie have leave to publish to Bobbie’s treating practitioners a copy of these orders which are not anonymised pursuant to order 2 hereof.

No person be permitted to search the Court file in this matter without first obtaining leave of a Judge.

Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed and the matter is removed from the list of active pending cases.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.