By Dr Felicity Bell -
Snapshot
- In Australia, court approval for hormone therapy for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria is not required if the child consents, is competent and parents agree, but disputes still arise in an area that breeds controversy.
- International developments, including bans on puberty blockers for minors, have influenced the debate and raised concerns among health professionals, while courts grapple with assessing contested and politicised expert evidence.
- This article unpacks recent cases that highlight the difficulties for courts in assessing gender dysphoria, including the unprecedented outcome in Re: Devin where one parent’s attempts to transition a young child were found to pose an unacceptable risk of harm.
Since the decision of the Full Court of the Family Court (as it was then) in Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258, people aged under 18 seeking ‘stage 2’ hormone therapy for gender dysphoria have not had to apply to family law courts to obtain that treatment if certain conditions are met: the child consents, treating medical practitioners agree the child is competent to give consent and the child’s parents do not object. This followed the decision in Re: Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110 which allowed a child’s parents or guardians to consent to the child accessing ‘stage 1’ treatment, or puberty suppressing hormones (‘PSH’). Generally speaking, medicalised gender-affirming treatment for gender dysphoria, in the form of both PSH and ‘stage 2’ treatment (to promote the development of non-natal characteristics), has been accessible to young people in Australia for a number of years, albeit with varying levels of court involvement.
