Re: Chloe

In the matter of Chloe, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the administration of Stage 2 treatment for childhood Gender Dysphoria to a child named Chloe. The application was brought by an unspecified party seeking declarations regarding the necessity of Family Court authorisation for this treatment.

The central legal issues before the court were whether authorisation from the Family Court of Australia was required for the administration of Stage 2 treatment for childhood Gender Dysphoria to Chloe, and whether the Minister for the relevant Government Department, acting as the child welfare officer with parental responsibility, needed to seek the court's authority for such treatment.

Rees J reasoned that authorisation by the Family Court was not required for Stage 2 treatment provided certain conditions were met: the child must have a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, treating practitioners must agree the child is Gillick competent, the proposed treatment must be agreed to be therapeutic, and there must be no controversy surrounding the treatment. Consequently, the court declared that the Minister, in his capacity as the child welfare officer, was not required to seek the authority of the Family Court for the administration of Phase 2 treatment. The application was otherwise dismissed. The court also made extensive orders for the anonymisation of the judgment and suppression of identifying details to protect Chloe's privacy.