FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1)
Re: Rowan [2022] FedCFamC1F 134
File number(s): By Court order file number is suppressed Judgment of: SCHONELL J Date of judgment: 11 March 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – GENDER DYSPHORIA – Where the child seeks stage two hormone treatment – Where the child is Gillick competent – Where the child’s medical practitioners and mother support the treatment – Where the father also provided consent for the treatment – Where the mother and child have not communicated with the father since 2017 – Where the mother seeks sole parental responsibility – Where the mother also seeks to formally change the child’s name – Where the Court considered the s 60CC(2) primary considerations and s 60CC(3) additional considerations to determine what was in the child’s best interests – Where the Court found that it was in the best interests of the child for the mother to have sole parental responsibility, for the child to undergo stage two treatment and for the child’s name to be changed. Legislation: Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA
Cases cited: Re Kelvin (2017) FLC 93-809; [2017] FamCAFC 258 Division: Division 1 First Instance Number of paragraphs: 70 Date of hearing: 11 March 2022 Representation By court order the names of legal practitioners are suppressed ORDERS
SYC 714 of 2022 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 1)
BETWEEN: THE MOTHER
Applicant
AND: THE FATHER
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
SCHONELL J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 MARCH 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The mother (“the mother”), shall have sole parental responsibility for decisions about the long-term care, welfare and development of the child Rowan born 2004 (previously known as X), to the exclusion of the father (“the father”), including but not limited to the provision of any necessary parental consent for:
(a)Stage two treatment being administration of cross-sex hormones for Rowan, with such treatment to be provided on and from a date determined by Rowan’s medical practitioners, and in such manner and with such frequency as determined by Rowan’s treating medical practitioners.
2.The child shall henceforth be known as Rowan.
3.For the purposes of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, in the state in which the child resides, a change of name for the child from “X” to “Rowan” is approved by the Court.
4.The registrar of Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages is to register this change of name for the purposes of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, in the state in which the child resides.
5.The mother to do all things and sign all documents necessary to give effect to Orders 3 and 4 above.
6.The full name of the child Rowan (born X), his family members, his hospital, his medical practitioners, his school, this court’s file number, any Court Child Expert, the state of Australia in which these proceedings were initiated, the name of Rowan’s parents’ lawyers, and any other…
Continue reading Re: Rowan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re: Rowan [2022] FedCFamC1F 134
- Case
- [2022] FedCFamC1F 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved a dispute between the parents of Rowan, a 17-year-old child, regarding parenting orders and the commencement of gender-affirming medical treatment. The mother sought sole parental responsibility and permission to proceed with stage two of the gender-affirming treatment for Rowan, who was diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria. The father did not appear at the hearing despite being notified. The court was required to determine whether it was in Rowan's best interests to grant sole parental responsibility to the mother and to allow the commencement of stage two of the gender-affirming medical treatment. The court also needed to decide whether it was appropriate to change Rowan's name to reflect his gender identity.
The court considered the evidence provided by both parties, including the testimonies of Rowan and the psychiatrist who diagnosed him with Gender Dysphoria. The court assessed the capacity of each parent to provide for Rowan's needs, the extent to which each parent had participated in decisions concerning Rowan's welfare, and Rowan's views on the matter. The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver for Rowan and had demonstrated a deep commitment to his wellbeing. The father's lack of involvement in Rowan's life and his failure to engage with Rowan during the visits were noted. The court also considered the medical evidence and the psychiatrist's testimony regarding the benefits and risks of the proposed gender-affirming treatment. The court concluded that Rowan was aware of the risks and had been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision.
The court determined that it was in Rowan's best interests to grant sole parental responsibility to the mother, as she had been the primary caregiver and had shown a clear commitment to his wellbeing. The court was satisfied that Rowan had been adequately informed about the proposed gender-affirming treatment and that it was in his best interests to proceed with stage two of the treatment. The court also found that changing Rowan's name to reflect his gender identity was in his best interests. The court made orders to protect Rowan's privacy and to facilitate the implementation of the gender-affirming treatment.
The court considered the evidence provided by both parties, including the testimonies of Rowan and the psychiatrist who diagnosed him with Gender Dysphoria. The court assessed the capacity of each parent to provide for Rowan's needs, the extent to which each parent had participated in decisions concerning Rowan's welfare, and Rowan's views on the matter. The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver for Rowan and had demonstrated a deep commitment to his wellbeing. The father's lack of involvement in Rowan's life and his failure to engage with Rowan during the visits were noted. The court also considered the medical evidence and the psychiatrist's testimony regarding the benefits and risks of the proposed gender-affirming treatment. The court concluded that Rowan was aware of the risks and had been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision.
The court determined that it was in Rowan's best interests to grant sole parental responsibility to the mother, as she had been the primary caregiver and had shown a clear commitment to his wellbeing. The court was satisfied that Rowan had been adequately informed about the proposed gender-affirming treatment and that it was in his best interests to proceed with stage two of the treatment. The court also found that changing Rowan's name to reflect his gender identity was in his best interests. The court made orders to protect Rowan's privacy and to facilitate the implementation of the gender-affirming treatment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
I am satisfied that the father had notice of the hearing date. The father did not appear on the hearing. BACKGROUND HISTORY The mother was born in 1973 in Country G and is currently aged 49 years. She is a citizen of both Australia and Country G. The father was born in 1970 in Australia and is currently aged 51 years. They are the parents of Rowan, who was born as X in 2004. The parties commenced a relationship in 1997 and began cohabitation after dating for six months. The parties separated in or around June 2005. The mother contends that the father was violent and used recreational drugs during their relationship. After separation, the mother and Rowan relocated to Country G in either late 2005 or early 2006. The mother contends that after moving to Country G, the father became hostile and sent her abusive text messages, which she reported to the police. On 30 June 2006, parenting orders were made by consent in the Family Court of Country G. These orders provided the mother with exclusive responsibility of Rowan. Between 2005 and 2012, the mother and Rowan returned to visit Australia on about three occasions. During these visits, the mother and Rowan stayed with the father’s parents. Despite arrangements being made for the father to meet Rowan, the father arrived late or rescheduled. In 2014, the mother was advised about the father’s new email address. She subsequently began updating the father about Rowan via this email. The mother contends that while the father did not reply to these emails, his parents told her that he was receiving them. In late 2016, the mother and Rowan returned to Australia. Arrangements were made on five occasions for the father to visit Rowan. The father failed to attend on the first four. The fifth occurred in August 2017. The father arrived late and did not engage with Rowan. This was the last time that both the mother and Rowan have seen or communicated with the father. The mother and Rowan subsequently moved back to Country G. Rowan was enrolled into year 10 and in or around June 2018, the mother contends that his school performance deteriorated. Rowan became depressed after moving back to Country G, and he struggled with anorexia and began self-harming. Rowan subsequently saw a psychiatrist for about six sessions and was diagnosed with major depression and anxiety. Rowan was unwilling to take anti-depressants. Towards the end of 2018, the mother and Rowan moved to Australia. The mother took Rowan to a health service, an organisation that provides mental health support. Rowan attended for about three months but they could not provide the necessary support to Rowan, who by this time was expressing suicide ideation. Rowan subsequently sought support from the youth mental health service, where the support is overseen by a psychiatrist. Rowan continues to remain engaged with this service. The mother asserts that in late 2019, she noticed Rowan beginning to wear gender neutral clothing and a chest binder, and that he would hunch forward when standing. She also noticed Rowan becoming fixated on his food consumption and weight, and that he began rapidly losing weight. Consequently, he was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. Rowan continued to lose weight and was admitted to hospital for treatment in December 2019.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Section 60CC(3) sets out the additional considerations that are necessary in determining what is in a child’s best interests. Not all of the considerations are relevant to the determination that I am required to make. Those that are relevant are s 60CC(3)(a), being Rowan’s views, which I have already referred to, and I take into account both his evidence and that of Dr B. In particular, I note that Rowan will be 18 in about six months. I note s 60CC(3)(c), being the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity to participate in decisions. I have already addressed this in relation to the father’s lack of involvement in the child’s life to date, and the mother’s enormous devotion and care giving role in relation to Rowan. Section 60CC(3)(f) addresses the capacity of each of the child’s parents to provide for the child’s needs. I am more than comfortably satisfied that his mother has the capacity and the insight to provide for Rowan’s emotional needs. The orders she seeks are entirely focused on Rowan’s emotional needs. No other s 60CC factor is referrable to my determination. CONCLUSION The medical evidence establishes that Rowan has Gender Dysphoria. Rowan is fortunate to have the support of a mother who clearly loves him and places his interests foremost. He is also assisted by health professionals who clearly have his best interests at heart. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before me that establishes to my satisfaction, that he is aware of the risks of treatment, and that he has been provided with sufficient information in relation to making a decision. It is clear to me from the evidence of Dr B that Rowan has had the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment explained to him. I am satisfied that the evidence supports an order for sole parental responsibility in favour of the mother. I am satisfied that it is in Rowan’s best interests that he commence stage two treatment, and propose to make the orders as sought by the mother to enable her to implement such treatment as soon as is possible. The child has assumed a new name as part of his gender identity. I find that it is in his best interests for his name to be changed and for the registrar of Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register this change accordingly. I also propose to make orders to the extent that I can to protect his privacy.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.