Women's and CHILDREN'S Health Network Inc v JC, JC, and KC (By Her Litigation Guardian) - [2012] SASC 104

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Applications Under Various Acts or Rules: Civil)
WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH NETWORK INC v JC, JC, AND KC (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN)
[2012] SASC 104
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice White
1 June 2012
FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - CHILD WELFARE UNDER STATE LEGISLATION - CHILDREN IN NEED OF PROTECTION - PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CARE AND PROTECTION - POWERS RELATING TO MEDICAL TREATMENT
Application under parens patriae jurisdiction by Women's and Chidlren's Hospital for authority to administer transfusions of blood products to a child - parents of child object on religious grounds - consideration of parens patriae jurisdiction - whether in best interests of the child to authorise transfusions.
Held: authority granted.
Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) s 13, referred to.
Children, Youth & Women's Health Services Inc v YJL, MHL and TL [2010] SASC 175, applied.
Chignola v Chignola (1974) 9 SASR 479; Re O'Hara [1900] 2 IR 232; Rolands v Rolands (1983) 9 Fam LR 320; Re Paul [2008] NSWSC 960; Re Bernard [2009] NSWSC 11; Director General of the Department of Community Services v BB [1999] NSWSC 1169, considered.

WOMEN'S AND CHILDREN'S HEALTH NETWORK INC v JC, JC, AND KC (BY HER LITIGATION GUARDIAN)
[2012] SASC 104
Civil

WHITE J. On 1 June 2012 I made orders authorising consultants in the Haematology/Oncology Unit at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital (WCH) to give transfusions of blood or of blood products to the third defendant (KC) without the consent of her parents (the first and second defendants). I outlined briefly at the time my reasons for those orders and said that I would publish more formal reasons later. What follows are those reasons.
KC is a four-year-old girl who has been diagnosed with leukaemia. Dr Ritchie, KC’s paediatric oncologist, considers that in the absence of active treatment including chemotherapy her prognosis is poor, with a high risk of death within a matter of months. That prognosis can, however, be markedly improved by a recognised treatment regime in which chemotherapy and the provision of blood transfusions are essential elements. The WCH wishes to be able to begin that regime, but KC’s parents object, on the basis of their religious convictions, to blood transfusions.
Accordingly, the WCH has applied to the Court for an authority to administer the blood transfusions which are necessary for, and incidental to, the chemotherapy treatment, in the absence of the parents’ consent, and despite their objection.
Owing to the serious and deteriorating nature of KC’s condition I directed, on the application of the WCH and without opposition from KC’s parents, that the matter proceed immediately to trial. Both the WCH and the parents of KC were represented by counsel. Without objection from the parents, I appointed Mr Croser as KC’s litigation guardian and he represented her interests in the trial.
KC first came to the Women’s and Children’s Hospital on 28 May. Her parents were concerned about a…

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 Women's and CHILDREN'S Health Network Inc v JC, JC, and KC (...

Details

AGLC: Women's and CHILDREN'S Health Network Inc v JC, JC, and KC (By Her Litigation Guardian) [2012] SASC 104
Case: [2012] SASC 104
Decision Date: 1 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Women's and Children's Health Network Inc sought authority from the Supreme Court of South Australia to administer blood transfusions to a young girl, KC, against the wishes of her parents, JC and JC, who objected on religious grounds. The girl had been diagnosed with leukaemia and required blood transfusions as part of her chemotherapy treatment. The parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, objected to the transfusions based on their religious beliefs. The court was required to decide whether the exercise of its inherent parens patriae jurisdiction was necessary to authorise the transfusions despite the parents' objections.

The court considered the parens patriae jurisdiction, which is the inherent power of the court to protect those who are unable to look after themselves, and whether it had been displaced by statute. The court held that the jurisdiction had not been displaced and could be exercised to authorise the transfusions despite parental objection. The court also considered the powers of the Women's and Children's Hospital under the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) and found that they did not provide a power for the lawful provision of medical treatment in cases of sudden need which demand immediate action.

The court held that it was appropriate to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction in this case to permit KC to receive the blood transfusions despite her parents' objection. The court was satisfied that KC's parents had a genuine, conscientious objection to the provision of blood transfusions based on their religious conviction, but that it was in KC's best interests to receive the transfusions. The court was satisfied that there were no reasonable alternatives to the provision of blood transfusions as a means of treatment and that without the transfusions, there was a very high prospect that KC would die.

The court made orders authorising the Women's and Children's Hospital to give transfusions of blood or of blood products to KC and requiring KC's parents to comply with reasonable directions from consultants at the WCH concerning her treatment.

Orders