Re: Devin

This case involves a dispute between the mother and father of a young child regarding their child's gender identity and the appropriate medical treatment for the child's gender dysphoria. The father disputes the child's diagnosis of gender incongruence and the mother's proposal to administer puberty blockers to the child. The mother seeks sole parental responsibility for the child's long-term health, including in relation to gender identity, while the father opposes the administration of puberty blockers and seeks sole parental responsibility for the child. The court must decide whether the child's diagnosis of gender incongruence is accurate, whether puberty blockers should be administered, and what is in the best interests of the child in terms of living arrangements and parental responsibility.

The court found that the child's diagnosis of gender incongruence/dysphoria was not accepted, and instead found the child to be gender fluid or expansive. The court also found that, even if the child were gender incongruent/dysphoric, the administration of puberty blockers as proposed by the mother would not be in the best interests of the child. The court determined that it was in the best interests of the child for the child to live with the father and spend time with the mother, and for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the child. The court made orders for the child to live with the father, for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the child, and for the parents to be restrained from discussing court proceedings or the contents of any documents filed in any court with or in the presence or hearing of the child.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented in the case, including expert evidence from psychologists, paediatricians, and psychiatrists. The court found that the evidence did not support the child's diagnosis of gender incongruence and that the administration of puberty blockers would not be in the best interests of the child. The court also considered the child's age and the need to leave all options open for the child as they grow and mature. The court found that the proposed orders were in the best interests of the child and would cause some initial distress but were ultimately in the child's overall best interests. The court also found that the orders for the father to have sole parental responsibility for the child, in particular in relation to the child's gender identity, and for the child to live with the father, would be difficult for the mother to accept and would be distressing for her. Nevertheless, the court concluded that these orders were in the best interests of the child.