Re: Pat - [2017] FamCA 418

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: PAT

[2017] FamCA 418

FAMILY LAW – MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Gender dysphoria – Application for the child to undergo Stage 2 treatment for gender dysphoria – Where the child is 17 years of age –Consideration of whether the child is Gillick competent.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 67ZC

Re Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112

APPLICANTS:

The Father and the Mother

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

Independent Children's Lawyer

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED:

15 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF:

Rees J

HEARING DATE:

14 June 2017

REPRESENTATION

By Court Order the names of Solicitors have been suppressed

Orders

IT IS DECLARED

That the child, Pat, who was born on … 1999, is competent to consent to the administration of oestrogen and progesterone for the purpose of treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013) (“DSM-5”).

IT IS ORDERED

That the full name of Pat, his family members, his hospital, the Independent Children’s Lawyer, his medical practitioners, his school, this Court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, the name of Pat’s parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify Pat, shall not be published in any way, and only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover-sheets excluding the registry, file number, and lawyers’ names and details, as well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, it being noted that each party shall be handed one full copy of these Orders with the relevant details included, to enable their execution, and one cover-sheet of Reasons for Judgment that includes the file number and lawyers’ names.
That no person shall be permitted to search the Court file in this matter without first obtaining the 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 pseudonym Re: Pat has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

The Mother and the Father

Applicants

And

Independent Children’s Lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicants are the parents of Pat, born in 1999. Pat identifies as female and wishes to commence the administration of therapeutic oestrogen and progesterone, which is referred to as Stage 2 treatment for Gender Dysphoria.
The applicants seek a declaration that Pat is competent to…

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: Pat

Details

AGLC: Re: Pat [2017] FamCA 418
Case: [2017] FamCA 418
Decision Date: 15 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Re: Pat*, Rees J of the Supreme Court of [State] considered an application concerning the medical treatment of a child, Pat, who was born in 1999. The dispute centred on Pat's capacity to consent to the administration of oestrogen and progesterone for the treatment of Gender Dysphoria, as defined by the DSM-5.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Pat, as a minor, possessed the requisite competence to provide informed consent for this specific medical treatment. This required the Court to assess Pat's maturity, understanding, and capacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of the proposed treatment, notwithstanding his age.

Rees J applied the principles of common law regarding the capacity of minors to consent to medical treatment. The Court determined that Pat had demonstrated sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him to understand fully what is involved in the proposed treatment. Consequently, the Court declared that Pat was competent to consent to the administration of oestrogen and progesterone for the treatment of his Gender Dysphoria. The Court also made extensive orders for the anonymisation of the proceedings and restricted access to the court file to protect Pat's privacy.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS DECLARED

That the child, Pat, who was born on … 1999, is competent to consent to the administration of oestrogen and progesterone for the purpose of treatment of Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013) (“DSM-5”).

IT IS ORDERED

That the full name of Pat, his family members, his hospital, the Independent Children’s Lawyer, his medical practitioners, his school, this Court’s file number, the State of Australia in which the proceedings were initiated, the name of Pat’s parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify Pat, shall not be published in any way, and only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover-sheets excluding the registry, file number, and lawyers’ 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, it being noted that each party shall be handed one full copy of these Orders with the relevant details included, to enable their execution, and one cover-sheet of Reasons for Judgment that includes the file number and lawyers’ names.

That no person shall be permitted to search the Court file in this matter without first obtaining the 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.