Re YL - [2025] NSWSC 75

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re YL [2025] NSWSC 75
Hearing dates: 18 February 2025
Date of orders: 18 February 2025
Decision date: 19 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: Williams J
Decision:
Orders made authorising administration of blood products – see [12] and [19]-[20].

Catchwords:
CHILD WELFARE – Parens patriae jurisdiction – Application by Local Health Authority for orders authorising administration of blood products to child if necessary during surgical procedures for resection of brain tumour – Child’s parents consent to surgical procedures but withhold consent to the administration of blood products which is contrary to their faith – Best interests of child.

Legislation Cited:
N/A

Cases Cited:
Hospital v Baby M [2020] NSWSC 1481
Re Jules [2008] NSWSC 1193
Re Rosie (No. 2) [2022] NSWSC 1750
Re Rosie (No. 3) [2023] NSWSC 37
Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion’s case) (1992) 175 CLR 218; [1992] HCA 15

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: [Suppressed] Local Health District (Plaintiff)
LK (A Pseudonym) (Second Defendant)
DL (A Pseudonym) (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Grooby (Solicitor Advocate) (Plaintiff)
Second and Third Defendants (No Appearance)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor for New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Second and Third Defendants (No Appearance)

File Number(s): 2025/64948
Publication restriction: Yes

Judgment

These are my reasons for making orders in the exercise of the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction at the conclusion of an urgently convened hearing on the afternoon of 18 February 2025.
These proceedings concern a 7-year-old child, whose name has been anonymised to YL.
YL was diagnosed as suffering from a brain tumour on 14 February 2025 after presenting to the Emergency Department of a hospital in New South Wales earlier that day following a period of being unsteady on their feet and falling over, with associated intermittent frontal headaches and vomiting.
Later that same day, YL was transferred to another hospital in New South Wales, where they were admitted to the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit at 1:00am on 15 February 2025. There, YL underwent an MRI which confirmed the presence of a brain tumour. The doctors responsible for YL’s care at that hospital formulated a plan for surgery to remove (or “resect”) the tumour, or as much of it as possible. The medical term for the tumour with which YL has been diagnosed is a posterior fossa tumour with obstructive hydrocephalus and radiological tonsillar herniation. YL’s treating paediatric neurooncologist and haematologist (to whom I will refer in these reasons as their treating specialist) has given evidence explaining that the tumour is located in the posterior fossa and is blocking the flow of cerebrospinal fluid and causing brain herniation.
It is not clear whether or not YL’s tumour is malignant. This can only be determined by pathology testing of the tumour itself after it is wholly or partly removed. However, in the opinion of YL’s treating specialist, the tumour is very likely an aggressive tumour, and YL’s prognosis is very dire if…

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 YL

Details

AGLC: Re YL [2025] NSWSC 75
Case: [2025] NSWSC 75
Decision Date: 19 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the Local Health Authority sought orders authorising the administration of blood products to a child, YL, if necessary during surgical procedures for the resection of a brain tumour. YL's parents consented to the surgical procedures but withheld consent to the administration of blood products due to their religious beliefs. The court was tasked with determining whether the administration of blood products was in the best interests of the child, despite the parents' objections.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the Local Health Authority's application for orders authorising the administration of blood products was in the best interests of the child. This required a balancing of the child's medical needs against the parents' religious beliefs and the child's welfare. The court had to determine if the medical necessity for the blood products outweighed the parents' right to direct the child's medical treatment in accordance with their religious convictions.

The court found that the administration of blood products was in the best interests of the child. It held that the child's medical needs were paramount and that the withholding of consent for blood products, which was contrary to the child's medical requirements, was not in the child's best interests. The court concluded that authorising the administration of blood products would ensure the child's survival and potential for a good quality of life, which outweighed the parents' religious objections. Consequently, the court granted the Local Health Authority's application, authorising the administration of blood products during the surgical procedures.

The court's final orders provided that the Local Health Authority was authorised to administer blood products to the child if necessary during the surgical procedures for the resection of the brain tumour. This decision was made in the best interests of the child, considering the child's medical needs and welfare. The court's ruling underscored the importance of the child's health and well-being in situations where there is a conflict between parental rights and the child's medical requirements.

Orders