Re Elliott

In Re Elliott, the applicants, who were the parents of a child born in 2000, sought authorisation from the court to consent to stage two treatment for the child's diagnosed Gender Dysphoria. This treatment involved the administration of testosterone to achieve male puberty. The court was required to determine whether to grant this authorisation and to make orders regarding the publication of the proceedings and the child's identity.

The central legal issue before the court was the capacity of the parents to consent to medical treatment for their child, specifically stage two gender-affirming care, in circumstances where the child was a minor. The court also had to consider the implications of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly section 121, concerning the publication of identifying information in family law proceedings.

Tree J authorised the applicants to consent to stage two treatment for the child, comprising the administration of testosterone as determined by the treating medical practitioners. The court made extensive orders to protect the child's privacy, prohibiting the publication of any identifying details of the child, their family, or the proceedings, save as permitted by the order. The court also granted leave for the parents and the child to provide unanonymised copies of the orders to treating health practitioners, to the extent not already authorised by section 121(9) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The child was given liberty to identify himself as the subject of the decision if he chose. All other extant applications were dismissed.