Re: Nadia - [2017] FamCA 526

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: NADIA

[2017] FamCA 526

CHILDREN – MEDICAL PROCEDURE – Gender Dysphoria – Applicant parents seek an order that child is competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria – Whether child is Gillick competent – Where parents and child’s treating medical practitioners are of the view that child is Gillick competent – Finding that child is Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 treatment – Finding that benefits of proposed treatment significantly outweigh any risks associated with it – Where it is in the child’s best interests to undergo Stage 2 treatment - Where orders relating to confidentiality are made

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 121(9)

Re Jamie (2013) 278 FLR 155
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Area Health Authority [1968] AC 112
Secretary, Department of Health & Community Services v JWB &SMB (“Marion’s Case”) (1991-1992) 175 CLR 218

FIRST APPLICANT:

The Mother

SECOND APPLICANT:

The Father

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED:

11 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF:

Tree J

HEARING DATE:

21 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the names of solicitors have been suppressed

Orders

THE COURT FINDS AND IT IS DECLARED THAT:

Nadia, born … 2001 (“Nadia”) is competent to consent to the administration of stage two treatment for the condition called Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The full name of Nadia, her family members, hospital, medical practitioners, school, this court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, the name of Nadia’s mother and father and any other fact or matter which may identify Nadia shall not be published in any way.
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’ real names) shall be released by the court to non-parties without further contrary order of a judge.
That Nadia be at liberty to identify herself as the subject of this application and as the child the subject of the reasons for decision for these orders if she may choose.
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 mother and father and Nadia have leave to publish to Nadia’s treating health practitioners a copy of these orders which are not anonymised.
Further to Orders 4 and 5 above, each of the parties to these proceedings, and Nadia herself, shall be at liberty to collect by hand a full copy of the orders and any reasons for judgment published hereunder with all of the identifying details.
No person be permitted to search the court file in this matter without first obtaining leave of a judge.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the…

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: Nadia

Details

AGLC: Re: Nadia [2017] FamCA 526
Case: [2017] FamCA 526
Decision Date: 11 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re: Nadia, Tree J of the court was required to determine the capacity of a minor, Nadia, to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria. The specific treatment in question was stage two treatment for the condition.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Nadia, a person born in 2001, possessed the legal competence to consent to the proposed medical intervention. This involved an assessment of her maturity and understanding of the treatment and its implications.

Tree J applied the principles governing the capacity of minors to consent to medical treatment, which require an assessment of the minor's understanding and intelligence. The court found that Nadia was competent to consent to the administration of stage two treatment for gender dysphoria. The court also made extensive orders regarding the publication of the proceedings and judgment, aiming to protect Nadia's privacy while allowing for her to identify herself as the subject of the case and for her treating practitioners to receive unanonymised copies of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT FINDS AND IT IS DECLARED THAT:

Nadia, born … 2001 (“Nadia”) is competent to consent to the administration of stage two treatment for the condition called Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

The full name of Nadia, her family members, hospital, medical practitioners, school, this court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, the name of Nadia’s mother and father and any other fact or matter which may identify Nadia shall not be published in any way.

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’ real names) shall be released by the court to non-parties without further contrary order of a judge.

That Nadia be at liberty to identify herself as the subject of this application and as the child the subject of the reasons for decision for these orders if she may choose.

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 mother and father and Nadia have leave to publish to Nadia’s treating health practitioners a copy of these orders which are not anonymised.

Further to Orders 4 and 5 above, each of the parties to these proceedings, and Nadia herself, shall be at liberty to collect by hand a full copy of the orders and any reasons for judgment published hereunder with all of the identifying details.

No person be permitted to search the court file in this matter without first obtaining leave of a judge.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.