Re: Brittany - [2017] FamCA 527

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: BRITTANY

[2017] FamCA 527

CHILDREN – MEDICAL PROCEDURE – Gender Dysphoria – Where the applicants are the parents of a child diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria – Where the applicants seek a finding that the child is Gillick competent to consent to stage two treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Where the child’s treating medical experts and parents support the child commencing stage two treatment – Finding that the child is Gillick competent to consent to stage two treatment – Where the Court is otherwise satisfied that stage two treatment is in the child’s best interests.

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

Re Jamie (2013) 278 FLR 155
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority [1968] AC 112

Secretary, Department of Health & Community Services v JWB &SMB (“Marion’s Case”) (1991-1992) 175 CLR 218

FIRST APPLICANT:

The Mother

SECOND APPLICANT:

The Father

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED:

11 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

21 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the names of solicitors have been suppressed

Orders

THE COURT FINDS AND IT IS DECLARED THAT:

BRITTANY born … 2000 (“Brittany”) is competent to consent to the administration of stage two treatment for the condition called Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The full name of Brittany, her family members, hospital, medical practitioners, school, this court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, the name of Brittany’s mother and father and any other fact or matter which may identify Brittany shall not be published in any way.
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.
That Brittany be at liberty to identify herself as the subject of this application and as the child the subject of the reasons for decision for these orders if she may choose.
To the extent that the exception provided for in s 121(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) does not otherwise authorise it, the mother and father and Brittany have leave to publish to Brittany’s treating health practitioners a copy of these orders which are not anonymised.
Further to Orders 4 and 5 above, each of the parties to these proceedings, and Brittany herself, shall be at liberty to collect by hand a full copy of the orders and any reasons for judgment published hereunder with all of the identifying details.
No person be permitted to search the court file in this matter without first obtaining leave of a judge.

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 under the pseudonym Re: Brittany has been approved by the…

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: Brittany

Details

AGLC: Re: Brittany [2017] FamCA 527
Case: [2017] FamCA 527
Decision Date: 11 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re: Brittany, Tree J of the relevant Australian court considered an application concerning the competency of a minor, identified as Brittany, to consent to medical treatment. The dispute centred on Brittany's capacity to consent to stage two treatment for Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Brittany, a minor born in 2000, possessed the legal capacity to consent to the proposed medical treatment for gender dysphoria. This required an assessment of her maturity and understanding of the nature and consequences of the treatment.

Tree J determined that Brittany was competent to consent to the administration of stage two treatment for gender dysphoria. The court's reasoning, though not fully detailed in the provided text, led to declarations and orders aimed at protecting Brittany's privacy while allowing her and her parents to access and share the full, unanonymised orders and reasons for judgment with treating health practitioners. The court also imposed strict limitations on public access to the court file and mandated the anonymisation of reasons for judgment released to non-parties, unless specific leave was granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT FINDS AND IT IS DECLARED THAT:

BRITTANY born … 2000 (“Brittany”) is competent to consent to the administration of stage two treatment for the condition called Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The full name of Brittany, her family members, hospital, medical practitioners, school, this court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, the name of Brittany’s mother and father and any other fact or matter which may identify Brittany shall not be published in any way.

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.

That Brittany be at liberty to identify herself as the subject of this application and as the child the subject of the reasons for decision for these orders if she may choose.

To the extent that the exception provided for in s 121(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) does not otherwise authorise it, the mother and father and Brittany have leave to publish to Brittany’s treating health practitioners a copy of these orders which are not anonymised.

Further to Orders 4 and 5 above, each of the parties to these proceedings, and Brittany herself, shall be at liberty to collect by hand a full copy of the orders and any reasons for judgment published hereunder with all of the identifying details.

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

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.