Re: Daniel null

In the matter of Re: Daniel, Johns J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the medical treatment of a child named Daniel. The applicant sought to dispense with the requirement to serve the Initiating Application on the prescribed child welfare authority.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to dispense with service on the child welfare authority, as required by Rule 4.10 of the Family Law Rules 2004. A further, related issue concerned the publication of identifying details of the child and the proceedings, given the sensitive nature of the treatment sought. The Court also had to consider the conditions under which the application for medical treatment would proceed or be dismissed, pending a determination in another case.

Johns J reasoned that dispensing with service on the child welfare authority was appropriate in this instance, pursuant to Rule 1.12 of the Rules. The Court also made extensive orders to protect Daniel's privacy, prohibiting the publication of any identifying information and restricting access to the court file. The Court noted that the treatment in question was stage two hormonal treatment with testosterone for gender dysphoria.

The Court ordered that the requirement for service on the child welfare authority be dispensed with. The application for medical treatment was to be dismissed with a right of reinstatement, contingent upon Daniel being found competent to consent to the treatment and the determination of a Case Stated in *Re Kelvin* [2017] FamCA 78, should unresolved issues remain. The Court also made detailed orders regarding the anonymisation of judgments and the provision of un-anonymised documents to those involved in Daniel's treatment.