Re: G9 - [2022] FCWA 65

JURISDICTION : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: RE: G9 [2022] FCWA 65
CORAM: DUNCANSON J
HEARD: 15 MARCH 2022
DELIVERED : 1 APRIL 2022
FILE NO/S: [Redacted]
BETWEEN: THE MOTHER
Applicant
AND
THE FATHER
First Respondent
AND
SERVICE A
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

CHILDREN - where the child who is 16 years of age has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and wishes to access stage 1 puberty blocking treatment - where the father does not consent to or oppose the treatment - the procedures of [Service A] - where it is found the child is Gillick competent to consent to treatment - where a declaration is made to that effect - where it is in the best interests of the child that an order be made authorising treatment

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60CC, s 67ZC
Health Services Act 2016 (WA)

Category: Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms A
First Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Second Respondent	:	Ms B
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Ms C

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Law Firm A
First Respondent	:	Self-Represented Litigant
Second Respondent	:	Law Firm B
Independent Children's Lawyer	:	Law Firm C

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
Re Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547
Re Kelvin (2017) FLC 93-809
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB & SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218 (Marion's case)

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT – PARTIES' NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Re: G9 has been approved by the Family Court of Western Australia pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1These proceedings concern G9 who is [16 years of age]. G9 was born male but strongly desires to be a female. G9 has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria. In these reasons I shall refer to G9 using the female pronoun.
2On 15 March 2022 I made the following declaration and orders:
1There be a declaration that the child [G9] born [in] 2005 is competent to give consent to the administration of stage 1 Puberty Suppression Treatment to her for her diagnosed condition known as "Gender Dysphoria".
2The proposed stage 1 treatment of the child, in such dose and manner and with such frequency as determined by her medical treating team at [Hospital A] is authorised by this Court.
3The child's full name, her family members, her medical practitioners, the Court file number, the State in which the proceedings were initiated and any other fact or matter that might identify the child shall not be published in anyway.
4Only anonymised reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover sheets excluding the Registry, file name and number, and lawyers' names and details, as well as the child's real name, (both past and present) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without contrary order…

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: G9

Details

AGLC: Re: G9 [2022] FCWA 65
Case: [2022] FCWA 65
Decision Date: 1 APRIL 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gillick competent - where the mother and the child wish to proceed with the treatment and the child's best interests are at the forefront of the decision-making process - whether the court should order the child to access the treatment. The parties involved in this case are a 16-year-old child diagnosed with gender dysphoria and their parents. The child wishes to access stage 1 puberty blocking treatment to manage their condition, while the father does not consent to or oppose the treatment. The child's mother and the child support the treatment, and the court must determine whether it is in the child's best interests to access the treatment, despite the father's lack of consent.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should order the child to access stage 1 puberty blocking treatment for gender dysphoria despite the father's lack of consent. The court had to consider the child's best interests, the child's capacity to make informed decisions (Gillick competence), and the procedures of [Service A]. The court also had to determine if the child was Gillick competent and whether their decision to access the treatment should be respected.

The court found that the child was Gillick competent and that their decision to access the treatment aligned with their best interests. The court held that the child's autonomy and right to make decisions about their medical treatment should be respected, provided it is in their best interests. The court determined that the child's mother and the child had a valid and informed view on the matter, and the father's lack of consent did not outweigh the child's best interests. The court found that the child's mental health and wellbeing would benefit from the treatment and that it was in their best interests to proceed.

The court ordered that the child should access stage 1 puberty blocking treatment for gender dysphoria, in accordance with the procedures of [Service A]. The court emphasised that the decision was made with the child's best interests at the forefront and that the child's autonomy and right to make decisions about their medical treatment should be respected.

Orders