You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

Australia is the only country in the world which requires trans children to obtain permission from a court for Stage 2 treatment. Is it time for a rethink?

The law has always recognised that a parent is able to make medical decisions on behalf of their children, until that child is able to make those decisions themselves. Whether a child has reached the stage they are able to consent to their own medical treatment must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The Court should be reluctant to interfere with a parent’s right to make medical decisions on their child’s behalf. Parents are likely to know their children better than anyone else and usually, more intimately than a court can.

However, the Court recognises that there are rare occasions where even sincere and well intentioned parents are unable to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. Marion’s Case was an example of a special circumstance where parents of a severely intellectually disabled woman were unable to make the decision to consent to their daughter undergoing a sterilisation procedure without the Court granting permission.

Gender dysphoria

Gender dysphoria is a condition in which a child feels their identity and gender are not matched with his or her biological sex. Because of this, the child can suffer clinically significant distress or impairment in social functioning. Treatment for gender dysphoria has been treated in a similar way to Marion’s Case by the courts because it is a ‘special medical procedure’.

Stage 1 treatment for a child suffering from gender dysphoria involves suppressing puberty with hormone based treatment so the child maintains the appearance and features of their affirmed gender. The Court in Re Jamie found that the Court did not need to decide whether or not Stage 1 treatment could be provided because the child, her parents and medical practitioners all agreed the treatment was required. The child and her parents were able to decide for themselves.

Stage 2 treatment involves actively transitioning gender and is treated in a different way by the courts because of the irreversible effects and some health risks. The Court decided that neither Jamie nor her parents had the capacity to make the decision regarding Stage 2 treatment and instead, the Court found that only they (the Court) had the capacity to make a such a decision.

Why does the Court need to get involved?

The Court is the only body able to decide 'Gillick Competency' – a term used to describe if a child is competent to make their own decisions. If the child is Gillick competent and the parents and treatment providers agree, the Court does not have to decide regarding treatment. If however the child is not Gillick competent, or if the parents do not agree, then the Court has to decide whether to approve treatment.

In my opinion it’s unfair to require children who are capable of consenting to their own medical treatment – or whose parents consent to the treatment – to go to court and have decisions regarding medical treatment imposed upon them.

Children who are already at risk of imminent harm as a result of gender dysphoria, should not be subjected to court scrutiny, expense and delay when they are able to make decisions for themselves or with their parents.

In the recent case of Jacinta, the Court made the decision that Jacinta was able to consent to Stage 2 treatment herself. I applaud the declaration of the Court affirming that the 17-year-old Jacinta was indeed capable of choosing her own treatment. However, it remains that Jacinta and her mother were forced to engage in an expensive, lengthy and humiliating court proceeding in order to undergo treatment that was recommended by her treating medical specialists.

A change in this aspect of family law will significantly improve the outcomes for children with gender dysphoria.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Family Law
Is your inheritance protected?

Once you have made the choice to separate, it is likely you have started the difficult process of deciding how to divide your assets. For most people, this process begins with a ‘yours’ and ‘mine’ approach, whereby you separate assets into certain baskets depending on who they belong to. Regardless of your process, it is vital at this stage to receive legal advice to ascertain exactly what it is you are entitled to. It is possible what you want, and what you are entitled to, may be two very different realities. The Family Law Act gives the family courts broad discretion to make orders in relation to financial cases, including orders for dividing assets between parties. Whether you...

Istock 476824114 Blog
Family Law
Four key facts you need to know about your property settlement

When a marriage or a de facto relationship ends, the parties need to finalise their financial ties with one another. This may involve the transfer of ownership of real estate, cash, superannuation or other property from one party to another. For example, if the matrimonial home is in joint names the parties may agree that the house be sold and the proceeds divided. Alternatively, the parties may agree that one party receives the house and makes a cash payment of some nature to the other party to ‘buy out’ their interest. When you are separating, it is important to get legal advice from a Solicitor specialising in family law, in order to determine your entitlements. Any agreement reached...

105625090 Blog
Family Law
Can I change the locks?

“Can I change the locks?” – This must be one of the most common questions addressed by any family lawyer. The simple answer to whether a party going through separation can change the locks on a property they are living in is usually “yes”. If there is no court order which affects that person’s right to occupy the property, then in most circumstances there is little prohibiting a party from changing the locks. However the position can differ slightly depending on, which party legally owns the property. Where the property is owned by both parties Where the property is owned by one party Where the property is leased to you In all circumstances Perhaps the question asked should not...

Istock 475237296 Blog

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.