FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – SPECIAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE – Gender Dysphoria – Where the applicants seek a finding that the child is Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Where the child’s treating doctors opine that the child is not Gillick competent to fully understand the proposed health risks – Where the Court is of the view that the child is Gillick competent and can consent to the proposed treatment – Where the Court is otherwise satisfied that Stage 2 treatment is in the child’s best interests.
FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed
DATE DELIVERED:
2 May 2017
JUDGMENT OF:
Carew J
HEARING DATE:
12 April 2017
REPRESENTATION
By Court Order the solicitors’ names have been suppressed
upon the court finding:
That the child Jaden (formerly … or ...) born … 2000 is Gillick competent to make the decision to proceed with stage two treatment.
Order
The name of the child Jaden (formerly … or …) born … 2000 and details of his foster parents, his hospital, his medical practitioners, his school, this Court’s file number, the State of Australia in which proceedings were initiated, and any other fact, matter or detail which may identify Jaden shall not be published in any way save as permitted by this order or further order of the Court.
Only anonymised reasons for judgment and orders (with cover sheets excluding the registry file number and lawyer names and details as well as the parties’ and witnesses’ real names) shall be released by the Court to non-parties without further contrary order of a judge.
That Jaden be at liberty to identify himself as the subject of this application and as the child the subject of this decision if he so chooses.
To the extent that the exception provided for in s 121(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) does not otherwise authorise it, the applicant, or such other person as…
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: Jaden
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re: Jaden [2017] FamCA 269
Case
[2017] FamCA 269
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by the father, Mr. Jaden, for orders for the recovery of his child, [Child's Name], from the mother, Ms. Smith. The child was residing with Ms. Smith in Queensland. Mr. Jaden sought the child's return to New South Wales, where he resided, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The application was heard by Carew J in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the child had been wrongfully removed from Australia to Queensland, thereby constituting an abduction within the meaning of the Hague Convention. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the child's habitual residence was in New South Wales and if the removal to Queensland was contrary to Mr. Jaden's rights of custody.
Carew J considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the child's habitual residence. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning the Hague Convention, focusing on the child's settled routine and the intentions of the parents at the time of the child's relocation. His Honour found that the child's habitual residence was indeed New South Wales and that the removal by Ms. Smith was wrongful as it was contrary to Mr. Jaden's custodial rights.
Consequently, Carew J ordered the child's immediate return to New South Wales.