Judicial Discomfort over 'Innovative' Treatment for Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria.

Medical treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria has attracted considerable attention in recent years, with continuing court involvement in Australia and recent judicial review proceedings in the UK. In Re Imogen [No 6], the Family Court of Australia held that an application to the Family Court is mandatory if a parent or a medical practitioner of an adolescent diagnosed with gender dysphoria disputes the diagnosis, the adolescent's capacity to consent, or the proposed treatment. In this article, we examine the Family Court's rationale for preserving its welfare jurisdiction in gender dysphoria cases. We analyse case law developments in Australia and more recently in the UK and identify a thread of judicial discomfort in gender dysphoria jurisprudence about adolescents consenting to medical treatment that the court perceives to be 'innovative', 'experimental', 'unique', or 'controversial'. We explore whether treatment for gender dysphoria can be characterised as 'innovative' and identify four factors that appear to be influencing courts in Australia and the UK. We also consider how such a characterisation might impact (if at all) on an adolescent's capacity to consent to gender dysphoria treatment. We critique the ongoing role of courts in these cases and recommend a robust decision-making framework for gender dysphoria treatment to minimise court involvement in the future.

Re Imogen: the role of the Family Court of Australia in disputes over gender dysphoria treatment.

This article examines Re Imogen (No 6) (2020) 61 Fam LR 344, a decision of the Family Court of Australia, which held that an application to the Family Court is mandatory if a parent or a medical practitioner of a child or adolescent diagnosed with gender dysphoria disputes the diagnosis, the capacity to consent, or the proposed treatment. First, we explain the regulatory framework for the medical treatment of gender dysphoria in children and adolescents, including the development of the welfare jurisdiction under Section 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). We then provide an overview of the Re Imogen decision, and discuss the balancing exercise involved in determining a child's best interests in the medical treatment context. We challenge the Family Court's conclusion that, in relation to a dispute about diagnosis or treatment, a finding that the child or adolescent is Gillick competent to consent to treatment is not determinative, and the Family Court must determine the dispute. We argue that this conclusion represents an unjustified incursion into the right of Gillick competent transgender children and adolescents to make decisions about their own bodies and identities, and that the protective role of parents and the Family Court cannot justify interfering with their bodily autonomy in this context. Finally, we propose an alternative regulatory framework that removes the Family Court from the medical treatment process for gender dysphoria in circumstances of dispute between a parent and their Gillick competent child.