‘Confronting’ expert to give evidence in Family Court puberty blocker case

A judge will allow a medical expert who believes ‘social contagion’ has caused a spike in gender dysphoria to give expert evidence in a Family Court matter.

A judge will allow a medical expert who does not endorse the prescription of puberty blockers to give expert evidence in a Family Court matter.

A judge will allow a medical expert who believes “social contagion” has caused a spike in gender dysphoria and does not support endorsing a child’s chosen gender identity to give expert evidence in a Family Court matter, but says the evidence could be “confronting” and “difficult” for the child at the centre of the case.

A volunteer group that promotes “women’s gender-based rights” and is concerned about “medical interventions aimed at the “gender reassignment” of children by the use of puberty blockers and hormones” has been blocked from giving evidence at the court hearing.

The case regards two Australian parents who are divided over the gender transition of their eldest child, and are split over whether a variety of medical perspectives should be presented at trial.

Earlier this month, one parent attempted to block an application for a medical expert who opposes medically affirming a child’s chosen gender identity to give evidence in the proceedings. The parent did not want the expert, known as F, to give evidence because they deemed it potentially “hurtful or otherwise psychologically damaging”.

“In opposing the application, the respondent’s advocate raised a potential (psychological) risk to the child … in being required to meet with an expert who does not adhere to the ‘gender affirming care’ model,” Justice Suzanne Christie’s judgment reads.

“Specifically, I was taken to F’s work in which she discusses the expression ‘social contagion’ in the context of an increase in the ­incidence of identified gender ­dysphoria. The submission was to the effect that it is possible (the child) would find F’s approach hurtful or otherwise psychologically damaging.”

The court heard the child was willing to meet with F and accepted it was “part of the process”, which Justice Christie said was “commendable and pragmatic”.

“I accept that the process may still be confronting. I am not convinced it is likely to be psychologically damaging,” she wrote in the judgment. “These are important life-changing issues which require analysis, discussion, evaluation, re-evaluation and assessment. The issues are, by their very nature, confronting … and difficult.”

Ultimately, Justice Christie ruled F should prepare a report for the court to consider as evidence.

“Ordinarily, the court is cautious not to subject children to multiple interviews or assessments,” she wrote.

“In some cases it will be appropriate for there to be additional information available to the court to assist the process of making a best interests determination.”

The case comes as the Family Court of Australia continues to grapple with the complexities of gender identity, especially in the context of children, medication and surgery.

The Australian revealed last year that a Family Court judge determined a father’s refusal to conform with traditional gender norms left his three children “confused” and encouraged them to “question their gender identity” after they all began identifying as non-binary, ruling the two youngest children will not be permitted to see their ­father for an extended period.

On another occasion, the mother of a 13-year-old with gender dysphoria abruptly withdrew an application seeking a Family Court order to allow the child to take puberty blockers, after trying to have the independent children’s lawyer assigned to the matter thrown off the case. In May last year, Family Court judges were presented with a legal paper from a top barrister arguing the court must reassess how scientific advancements should apply to the family law system.

Justice Christie also ruled that a women’s gender rights activist group, which remains anonymous in the judgment, would not be permitted to give evidence in the case.

The group submitted an affidavit seeking to intervene in the proceedings and advocate “against the orders which are sought by one of the parents”.

“The proposed intervenor has submitted that while the parties’ specific circumstances are not known to the author of the submissions, she contends that parents may feel constrained from ’fully opposing gender affirming interventions’,” Justice Christie’s judgment reads, saying that view was full of “conjecture”.

Justice Christie determined that the group’s intervention would not be “necessary or appropriate”, emphasising the “important role” of an Independent Children’s Lawyer in making an assessment as to what the best interest of the child is.

The matter is listed for hearing at the end of March.