Re: Edith

Link copied
Case Copied 28 min read

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: EDITH [2014] FamCA 908
FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – MEDICAL PROCEDURE – Applicant parents seek authorisation for a special medical procedure – proposed treatment is a laparoscopic partial hysterectomy – where the child does not have the capacity to consent to the proposed medical procedure – where the proposed medical procedure is recommended and supported by the medical practitioners involved in the child’s care – satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests to authorise the proposed treatment.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 67ZC
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
Re Alex: Hormonal Treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria (2004) FLC 93-175
Re Angela (Special Medical Procedure) [2010] FamCA 98
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) FLC 92-293
APPLICANTS: The Mother and the Father
Independent Children’s Lawyer

File No: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED: 23 October 2014
JUDGMENT OF: Macmillan J
HEARING DATE: 29 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the names of counsel and solicitors have been suppressed

ORDERS

IT IS ORDERED THAT

  1. The surgical removal of Edith’s uterus is hereby authorised by the Court.

  2. To the extent that it is necessary, the father and the mother are hereby authorised to consent to the removal of Edith’s uterus on her behalf.

  3. The applicants’ Amended Initiating Application filed 28 August 2014 be otherwise dismissed and the matter be removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Re: Edith has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

File No: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

The Mother and the Father

Applicants

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. Edith was born in 1997 and is now 17 years of age. Edith, who has been assessed as having the mental age and IQ of a five year old, requires full time care and assistance.

  2. Edith was born with Ataxia Telangiectasia, which is a rare neurological disease. As a direct result of having Ataxia Telangiectasia, Edith has a severe intellectual disability, ataxic cerebral palsy, a sensory processing disorder and her behaviour is challenging. She also has an immune deficiency which has resulted in her having recurrent infections and, in particular, ear infections which have caused hearing impairment and behavioural changes. Dr H, Edith’s paediatrician, gave evidence that there was no prospect of any improvement in Edith’s long-term prognosis.

  3. Edith’s father is 46 years of age and works full time as a skilled tradesman. Edith’s mother, who is 44 years of age, is Edith’s full time carer.

  4. Edith’s parents were married in 1992.  They have two other adult children: A, who is 21 years of age and has just completed a university degree, and Y, who is 19 years of age and is a full time university…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re: Edith and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] FamCA 908
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before Macmillan J concerned an application for authorisation of surgical intervention for a child, Edith. The applicants, Edith's parents, sought the court's consent for the surgical removal of Edith's uterus.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to authorise the surgical removal of a minor's uterus, and if so, whether such an authorisation was in the best interests of the child. This involved considering the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make orders for the welfare of children and the principles governing medical treatment of minors without their consent.

Macmillan J reasoned that the Court's parens patriae jurisdiction extended to authorising necessary medical treatment for a child where parental consent was insufficient or where there was a dispute. Applying the paramount consideration of Edith's best interests, the Court found that the proposed surgery was medically indicated and would significantly improve Edith's quality of life and alleviate suffering. The Court was satisfied that Edith, by reason of her age and developmental stage, lacked the capacity to provide informed consent herself.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the surgical removal of Edith's uterus be authorised. The parents were also authorised to consent to the procedure on Edith's behalf, and the applicants' amended initiating application was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.

The surgical removal of Edith’s uterus is hereby authorised by the Court.

2.

To the extent that it is necessary, the father and the mother are hereby authorised to consent to the removal of Edith’s uterus on her behalf.

3.

The applicants’ Amended Initiating Application filed 28 August 2014 be otherwise dismissed and the matter be removed from the list of cases awaiting hearing.

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.