Re: Sam and Terry (Gender Dysphoria)

The Family Court of Australia heard two similar cases together concerning the gender dysphoria of two sixteen-year-old children, Sam and Terry. The parents of each child sought court orders authorising them to consent to Stage 1 and Stage 2 medical treatments for their respective children. Expert evidence indicated that neither child was considered Gillick-competent to consent to treatment.

The court was required to determine whether court authorisation was necessary for the proposed treatments, or if consenting to such treatment fell within the scope of parental responsibility. A key consideration was the distinction between Stage 1 treatment, which was described as completely reversible with no long-term side effects, and Stage 2 treatment, which carried significant risks and irreversible effects. The court also had to assess whether the proposed treatments were in the best interests of each child, particularly in light of significant comorbidities such as depression, self-harm, and suicidal ideation.

Applying the principles established in *Marion's Case*, the court reasoned that the power to consent to Stage 1 treatment, being reversible and low-risk, fell within the ambit of parental responsibility. However, for Stage 2 treatment, which involved irreversible effects and significant risks, court authorisation was deemed necessary. The court found the expert evidence unanimous regarding the unlikelihood of the children's conditions resolving spontaneously and that the proposed treatments aligned with international guidelines and Australian medical practices.

Consequently, the court made orders authorising the parents of Sam and Terry to consent to the proposed Stage 2 treatments for their respective children, under the guidance of their treating medical practitioners. The court also made extensive orders to protect the privacy of the children, including the suppression of identifying information in any published judgments or court records.