Re: Cameron

In *Re: Cameron*, heard by Kent J, the proceedings concerned an application for leave to file an affidavit from a child and for the child to be present in court. The central dispute revolved around authorising medical treatment for the child to achieve male puberty.

The court was required to determine whether to grant leave for the child's affidavit to be filed and read, and for the child to be present during the proceedings. Crucially, the court also had to consider whether to authorise the child's parents to consent to medical treatment, specifically the administration of Intramuscular Primoteston (testosterone enanthate), under the guidance of the child's treating medical practitioners.

Kent J applied sections 100B and 67ZC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Section 100B permits the court to grant leave for a child's affidavit to be filed and for the child to be present in court. Section 67ZC empowers the court to make orders for the medical treatment of a child. The court's reasoning, as evidenced by the orders made, indicates a determination that it was in the child's best interests to allow their participation in the proceedings and to authorise the proposed medical treatment for the induction of male puberty, following the advice of the child's endocrinologist and psychiatrist.

The court ordered that leave be granted for the child's affidavit to be filed and for the child to be present in court. Furthermore, the court authorised the applicants (the Father or the Mother) to consent to the administration of Intramuscular Primoteston on behalf of the child, in consultation with the treating medical practitioners, to achieve male puberty. Strict orders were also made regarding the non-publication of identifying details of the child and family members, and access to the court file was restricted.