Re: Quinn

Case [2016] FamCA 617


FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RE: QUINN [2016] FamCA 617
FAMILY LAW – MEDICAL PROCEDURES – Childhood gender dysphoria –Where the child is 15 years of age  – Consideration of whether the child is Gillick competent.
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 67ZC
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
Re Jamie (2013) FLC 93-547
APPLICANTS:

The Mother and the Father

RESPONDENT: The Secretary, relevant Government Department

FILE NUMBER:  By Court Order File Number is suppressed

DATE DELIVERED: 29 July 2016
JUDGMENT OF: Rees J
HEARING DATE: 26 July 2016

REPRESENTATION

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

Orders

IT IS DECLARED

  1. That the child Quinn, who was born on … 2001 is competent to consent to male chest reconstruction surgery 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

  1. That the full name of Quinn, 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were initiated, the name of Quinn’s parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify Quinn, shall not be published in any way, and only anonymised Reasons for Judgment and Orders (with cover-sheets excluding the registry, file number, and lawyers’ names and details, as well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.

  2. That no person shall be permitted to search the Court file in this matter without first obtaining the leave of a Judge.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Re: Quinn has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FILE NUMBER: By Court Order File Number is suppressed

The Mother and the Father

Applicants

And

The Secretary, relevant Government Department

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The Father and the Mother (“the applicants”) are the parents of Quinn, born in 2001. Quinn identifies as male and wishes to have a bilateral mastectomy, colloquially referred to as “top surgery”. The applicants ask the Court to determine that Quinn is competent to authorise the surgery.

  2. In the alternate, the applicants ask the Court to order that they can authorise the procedure.

  3. In these reasons, reference is made to guidelines published by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, Standards of Care (“the WPATH Guidelines”).

  4. The guidelines set out the generally accepted interventions as follows:

    1.   Fully reversible interventions. These involve the use of GnRH analogues to suppress oestrogen or testosterone production and consequently delay the physical changes of…

Continue reading Re: Quinn

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re: Quinn [2016] FamCA 617
Case
[2016] FamCA 617
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Re: Quinn*, Rees J of the Supreme Court of [State of Australia] was required to determine whether a child, Quinn, born in 2001, possessed the legal capacity to consent to male chest reconstruction surgery for the treatment of gender dysphoria. The proceedings involved Quinn, his parents, his medical practitioners, and the Independent Children's Lawyer, with strict non-publication orders being a significant feature of the case.

The central legal issue before the Court was the competence of a minor to consent to a significant medical procedure, specifically surgery related to gender affirmation. This required an assessment of Quinn's maturity, understanding, and ability to make an informed decision regarding the proposed treatment, notwithstanding his age.

Rees J applied principles of common law concerning the capacity of minors to consent to medical treatment. The Court considered the established legal test, which focuses on the minor's understanding and intelligence rather than their age. Having assessed Quinn's capacity, the Court declared that Quinn was competent to consent to the surgery. The Court also made extensive orders to protect Quinn's privacy, prohibiting the publication of any identifying details and restricting access to the court file.

Orders

Orders of the court

IT IS DECLARED

1.

That the child Quinn, who was born on … 2001 is competent to consent to male chest reconstruction surgery 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

2.

That the full name of Quinn, 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 Quinn’s parents’ lawyers, and any other fact or matter that may identify Quinn, 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.

3.

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

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.