Re: Dale

In *Re: Dale*, the applicants, who were the parents of a child diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, sought a declaration that their 16-year-old child, referred to as "Dale," was competent to authorise his own stage two medical treatment. The child's treating medical experts and parents supported him commencing this treatment. The proceedings were heard by Thornton J in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it needed to assess whether Dale possessed Gillick competence, meaning he was sufficiently mature and intelligent to understand the nature and implications of the proposed stage two treatment and therefore capable of consenting to it. Secondly, the court had to consider whether to dispense with the requirement under Rule 4.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) to serve the Medical Procedure Application upon the prescribed child welfare authority, given the absence of controversy regarding Dale's competency and the lack of any identified interest from the authority or other parties.

Thornton J reasoned that Dale was indeed competent to consent to the stage two treatment, which involved commencing testosterone therapy for his Gender Dysphoria. The court applied the principles of Gillick competence, finding that Dale had the capacity to make his own informed decision. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that there was no controversy as to Dale's competency and no indication that the prescribed child welfare authority had an interest in the matter, nor were any other interested parties identified. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 1.12 of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) to dispense with the service requirement.

The court made orders accordingly, declaring Dale competent to consent to the stage two treatment and authorising him to make his own decision regarding that treatment. Leave was granted to dispense with service on the child welfare authority. The proceedings were to be known as "Re: Dale," and strict confidentiality orders were made to protect Dale's identity, with provisions for the unanonymised orders and reasons to be provided to those involved in his treatment. The Amended Initiating Application was otherwise dismissed.