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
The surgical removal of Edith’s uterus is hereby authorised by the Court.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FamCA 908
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.