Re Ryder - [2020] NSWSC 895

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re Ryder [2020] NSWSC 895
Hearing dates: 3 & 10 July 2020
Date of orders: 10 July 2020
Decision date: 10 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity - Protective List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Medical treatment authorised

Catchwords:
CHILD WELFARE – Jurisdiction – Supreme Court of New South Wales – Parens patriae – Permitting chemotherapy for child where parents decline to consent

Cases Cited:
X v The Sydney Children's Hospital Network [2013] NSWCA 320; (2013) 85 NSWLR 294

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
The Hospital (First Plaintiff)
Minister for Health (Second Plaintiff)
Ryder (First Defendant)
The Mother (Second Defendant)
The Father (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

M Anderson (Plaintiffs)
The Mother and the Father (in person)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiffs)

File Number(s): 2020/197336
Publication restriction: No

ex tempore judgment (revised)

Summary

Ryder (a pseudonym), the first defendant, is a two years and eight month old boy who has already endured much in his short life. However, unlike many of the children who come to the Court’s attention, he has the unwavering love and support of his parents, the second and third defendants (the “Parents”). He has also had the benefit of highly skilled medical care.
Nevertheless, for reasons which the Court respects, Ryder’s parents do not wish to consent to the next step in his treatment - six cycles of chemotherapy (the “proposed treatment”) - which are unanimously recommended by his treating doctor (the “Doctor”), supported by collegial consultation among other specialists in the field including from overseas, and by a formal second opinion.
The plaintiffs - the Minister for Health and the treating hospital network (the “Hospital”) - have urgently invoked the parens patriae jurisdiction of this Court for orders which will permit the proposed treatment to be administered over the Parents’ objection. For the reasons which follow, the Court will make those orders. In short, the Court is satisfied that it is in Ryder’s best interests that he undergo a course of chemotherapy now, with its attendant discomfort and side effects but very good prospects of success, to avoid a significant prospect of contracting cancer and having to undergo far more toxic chemotherapy later with far lower prospects of a successful outcome.
Mr M Anderson of Counsel appeared for the plaintiffs. The Parents appeared for themselves and had support available from Mr D Kennard of the Legal Aid Early Intervention Unit.

Two preliminary points

It is necessary to begin with two important preliminary points. First, it must be recorded that the Parents are grateful for, and have acknowledged the excellence of, the care which Ryder has received. They have participated fully in all of his medical consultations and carefully listened to the advice they have been given. They are not to be criticised for the approach which they have taken to their present dilemma.
Second, as will become apparent, the reasons that the Parents do not wish to consent are rational and motivated by their concern for Ryder’s quality of life. They…

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 Ryder

Details

AGLC: Re Ryder [2020] NSWSC 895
Case: [2020] NSWSC 895
Decision Date: 10 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the matter of Re Ryder concerned a dispute between the parents of a terminally ill child and the hospital regarding the administration of chemotherapy. The child, Ryder, was suffering from an aggressive form of cancer, and while the medical team considered chemotherapy to be Ryder's best hope for survival, the parents, who held strong religious beliefs, declined to consent to the treatment on the grounds that it conflicted with their faith. The hospital sought a court order to permit the administration of chemotherapy over the objections of the parents.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the court had the jurisdiction to override the parents' refusal of consent for medical treatment that was deemed in the best interests of the child. This raised questions about the extent of the court's parens patriae jurisdiction and the balance between parental autonomy and the state's obligation to protect the welfare of the child. The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise its powers to make a decision in the child's best interests, potentially overriding the parents' wishes.

The court held that it did have the jurisdiction to intervene and that the welfare of the child was paramount. It found that the state has a duty to intervene in situations where a child's life is at risk and where the parents' decisions are not in the best interests of the child. The court accepted the medical evidence that chemotherapy was likely to provide Ryder with a chance of survival, and it concluded that the benefits of the treatment outweighed the potential harm. Consequently, the court granted the hospital's application and ordered that chemotherapy be administered to Ryder. The decision underscored the court's role in protecting the welfare of children, even in cases where it conflicts with parental beliefs.

Orders