Re: Eddie (No. 2) - [2017] FamCA 1001

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: EDDIE (NO. 2)

[2017] FamCA 1001

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Medical Procedures – Where a finding had previously been made that the child was Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria and the proceedings were otherwise adjourned pending the determination of the special case stated to the Full Court in Re Kelvin [2017] FamCA 78 – Where the Full Court did not confirm its decision in Re Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547 to the effect that Stage 2 treatment requires the court’s authorisation unless the child was Gillick competent to give informed consent – Where the Full Court determined that it was not mandatory to apply to the Family Court for a determination whether the child is Gillick competent where Stage 2 treatment is proposed, the child consents to the treatment and the parents and the medical practitioners are in agreement – Where the applicant’s application for a declaration or in the alternative an order authorising Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria is dismissed.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Re: Eddie [2017] FamCA 822
Re: Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547
Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCA 78
Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218 (“Marion’s case”)

APPLICANT:

The Mother

RESPONDENT:

The Father

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED:

4 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF:

Watts J

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2017

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the solicitor’s names have been suppressed

ORDERS

The applicant’s Initiating Application filed 29 September 2017 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Re Eddie (No. 2) has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Mother

Applicant

And

The Father

Respondent

EX TEMPOR REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 9 October 2017 in this matter ([2017] FamCA 822) I dealt with the applicant’s Initiating Application filed 29 September 2017 for a declaration or in the alternative an order authorising Stage 2 medical treatment for Gender Dysphoria as classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 2015 (DSM-5).
I made a finding that Eddie was Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 medical treatment for Gender Dysphoria.
However, given the Full Court was reserved in the special case stated in Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCA 78 and the outcome of the Full Court’s deliberations in that case would almost certainly impact upon whether or not it would be appropriate to dismiss the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re: Eddie (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Re: Eddie (No. 2) [2017] FamCA 1001
Case: [2017] FamCA 1001
Decision Date: 4 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Eddie, sought orders from the Supreme Court of Victoria, represented by Watts J. The nature of the dispute and the specific relief sought by Eddie are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the fact that an Initiating Application was filed on 29 September 2017.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's Initiating Application, filed on 29 September 2017, should be granted. The court was required to determine the merits of the application and whether it satisfied the necessary legal thresholds for the relief sought.

Watts J dismissed the applicant's Initiating Application filed on 29 September 2017. The court's reasoning for this dismissal is not elaborated upon in the provided text. The final orders reflect this dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant’s Initiating Application filed 29 September 2017 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.