Re Jordan

In the matter of *Re Jordan*, Kent J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application concerning the medical treatment of a child. The proceedings involved the child, referred to as Jordan, and the child's parents, the Father and the Mother, who were the applicants. A relevant State Government Department sought and was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to grant leave for the child's affidavit to be filed and read, for the child to be present in Court, and crucially, whether to authorise the parents to consent to medical treatment for the child. This treatment involved the administration of Intramuscular Primoteston (testosterone enanthate) to achieve male puberty, under the guidance of the child's treating medical practitioners, including an endocrinologist and a psychiatrist. The Court also had to consider orders for the non-publication of identifying details of the child and the proceedings.

Kent J applied provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), specifically sections 100B(1) and (2) regarding the child's participation in proceedings, and section 67ZC concerning the Court's authority to make orders for the welfare of a child. The Court reasoned that authorising the parents to consent to the specified medical treatment was in the best interests of the child, as determined in consultation with the child's medical specialists. The Court also made extensive orders to protect the child's privacy, prohibiting the publication of any identifying information and restricting access to the Court file.