FAMILY COURT SUPPORT FOR GENDER AFFIRMATION WELCOMED
Just.Equal Australia has welcomed a Family Court decision awarding responsibility for a transgender young person to his mother because she supports hormone treatment for her child.
The young person’s father, who opposes hormone treatment, sought equal responsibility but was refused.
The decision, handed down in the Family Court in Brisbane by Justice Peter Tree, was publicly released yesterday.
Just.Equal Australia spokesperson and transgender community advocate, Sally Goldner, welcomed the decision saying it is solid foundation for future Family Court decisions regarding trans youth seeking gender affirming care.
“Although Justice Tree made it clear his decision was only about the young person in front of him, he received a significant amount of clinical evidence for and against affirming care, including the UK Cass Review, and came down on the side of affirmation.”
“Justice Tree’s careful assessment of the evidence will mean his decision will be a solid foundation for other such cases before the Family Court in the future.”
“This decision is an endorsement of gender affirming care and highlights the robustness of the existing Australian approach.”
Justice Tree noted the possibility that hormone treatment for gender dysphoria, in this case treatment with testosterone, carries some risks but decided on balance that the risk to the young person of refusing such treatment would be far greater.
He dismissed claims the young person’s decision-making was impetuous and that a wait-and-see approach would benefit him.
Successive UK governments have cited the Cass Review to justify clamping down on gender affirming care for young people.
However, Justice Tree pointed to the Cass Review's “deficiencies, blind spots and limitations” and to “an overt political imperative” behind it.
He gave it “little weight” in his decision.
Instead, Justice Tree favoured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines saying they are “by far the best available guidance at this time, and...informed by decades of expert clinician experience”.
He said the guidelines, as well as the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines and state government policies, deserve “great weight, because they are models of care arrived at by consensus of the relevant professional bodies”.
A copy of the decision is attached.
For a copy of this statement in the web, click here
For more information contact Sally Goldner on 0407 946 242.
