Re: Dylan

In proceedings before Kent J of the Family Court of Australia, the applicants, identified as the Mother and the Father, sought orders concerning their child, Dylan. The core of the dispute involved the administration of medical treatment to Dylan to facilitate male puberty. The court also considered applications for leave to file an affidavit from the child, for the child to be present in court, and for a government department to intervene.

The legal issues before the court were whether to grant leave for the child's affidavit to be filed and read, whether to permit the child's attendance at the hearing, whether to allow the government department to intervene, and crucially, whether to authorise the parents to consent to medical treatment for Dylan, specifically the administration of Intramuscular Primoteston (testosterone enanthate), under the guidance of his treating medical practitioners. The court was also required to determine appropriate measures to protect the child's privacy and prevent his identification in any published reasons for judgment or orders.

Kent J granted leave for the child's affidavit to be filed and read, for the child to be present in court, and for the government department to intervene. Applying section 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the court authorised the Mother or the Father to consent to the administration of testosterone enanthate on behalf of Dylan. This authorisation was made subject to the guidance of Dylan's endocrinologist and psychiatrist, with the treatment to be administered in a manner and frequency determined in consultation with these medical practitioners to achieve male puberty. The court also made extensive orders to anonymise the proceedings and prevent the publication of any identifying details of the child, his family, or associated professionals, and restricted access to the court file.