Re Martin

[2015] FamCA 1189

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: MARTIN [2015] FamCA 1189

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Gender dysphoria – Declaration that child is Gillick competent to consent and make his own decision about stage two treatment.

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
Re: Jamie (2013) FLC ¶93-547; [2013] FamCAFC 110
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218

APPLICANTS: The Father and the Mother

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED: 23 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF: Bennett J

HEARING DATE: 23 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the names of counsel and solicitors have been suppressed

Orders

«FCA_LD221»IT IS DECLARED

1. That the child is Gillick competent and able to consent to testosterone hormone therapy treatment or any other complementary treatment.

IT IS DIRECTED

1. That the name of the child and any non-expert witness in this matter not be published.

2. The application filed 21 December 2015 be otherwise dismissed.

IT IS NOTED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ORDERS that the judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett delivered this day will for all publication and reporting purposes be referred to as Re: Martin.

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order file number is dismissed

RE: Martin

BETWEEN:

Applicants
The Father and the Mother

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The parents of a child whose name I will not reveal seek a declaration that their son (for the child identifies as male) is competent to consent to stage two cross-sex hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria.

2. The application is made jointly by the child’s parents and supported by the child’s treating clinicians from X Hospital. This is an urgent but non-controversial application.

3. I granted the parents’ application on 23 December 2015 and said that I would deliver my reasons subsequently. These are those reasons.

The application

1. The application was filed on 21 December 2015 but not sought to be proceeded with on that day. Instead it was allocated the earliest possible return date thereafter.

2. The applicants abandoned paragraph 6 of the order sought. That was that the treatment be administered to the child. That is understandable given that a declaration that the child is competent to consent to the treatment is all that is called for.

3. Both parents attended Court. The child did not attend.

4. The application is supported by the following evidence:-

   a)Affidavit of Dr F, paediatrician and adolescent medicine practitioner, sworn 24 September 2015;

   b)Affidavit of Professor P, consultant child and adolescent child psychiatrist, sworn 18 December 2015 which has annexed to it the same report (dated 10 October 2015) as was annexed to Professor P’s affidavit sworn 13 November 2015 a copy of which is on the court file;

   c)The affidavit of the father sworn 11 October 2015;

   d)The affidavit of the mother sworn on 7 October 2015.

5. The evidence is not challenged. It is well reasoned and internally consistent. I accept the evidence.

6. Notably, the expert reports were published in September and…