Gender clinic ‘whispering in ear’ of trans child: Family Court

A parent with concerns about a clinic ‘whispering in the ear’ of their transgender child is worried over ‘not being heard’ in conversations about the child’s transition, court told.

A complex matter in which one parent hopes to block their child from taking cross-sex hormones, and the other supports it, is being aired in the Family Court.

A parent who holds grave concerns about a gender clinic “whispering in the ear” of their transgender child feels worried about “not being heard” in conversations about the child’s transition, a court has heard.

The revelation came in a highly complex family law matter in which the parent hopes to block the transgender child, who is biologically female, from taking cross-sex hormones to become a boy.

The child’s other parent supports the prescription of testosterone, saying they “want what (the child) wants”.

The proceedings are governed by strict suppression orders preventing The Australian from printing key details about the family. As such, the parent who is in favour of cross-sex hormones will be referred to as Parent 1; the other, Parent 2.

The child will be referred to by the pseudonym Riley.

The Family Court on Thursday heard Parent 2, after learning that Riley wished to medically transition, attended three short sessions with a gender clinic but refused to meet with a paediatric endocrinologist to further investigate hormone treatments.

Parent 2 rejected an accusation from Parent 1’s barrister that they did not properly inform themselves about Riley’s transition, but rather said they held concerns about what Riley had been told by clinicians.

Parent 2 said they were unsure Riley understood “the pros and cons about hormone treatment”.

The court heard Parent 2 sent a stern email to the gender clinic, expressing their concerns. “This is an email that came from a very concerned parent who was not being heard … (to) an institution that has been whispering in (their) child’s ear,” Parent 2 told the court.

Asked why they refused to see a paediatric endocrinologist, Parent 2 replied: “I missed that ­opportunity, I did not refuse to go there.”

Parent 2 told the court they would have expected Parent 1 to have told them when Riley came out as transgender, and therefore did not feel prepared when they learned of his preferred gender identity.

When Riley first identified he wished to become a boy aged 10, he felt unsupported by Parent 2, the court heard.

Riley told a clinician he got a “good response” from Parent 1 when coming out, but when Parent 2 found out, they said “it’s a phase, it will pass”.

Parent 2 defended their choice of words, saying they did not feel prepared to hear the news from their young child.

“If (Riley) said anything to me that I wasn’t prepared for, it may have been (my) response,” Parent 2 said. “Such as ‘Look … I’m a pony’.”

Parent 2 described Riley coming out as “serious” and said: “I would have expected my (spouse) at the time would have spoken to me about it long before my child came out with it.”

The parents have a bitter relationship, which has played out in front of their two children.

Parent 2 denied instructing Riley and his sister to tell Parent 1 “You wouldn’t miss (them) if (they left)” and denied “roping in the children to say mean things to (Parent 1).”

Riley was heinously bullied when he came out when first starting high school, with his peers squashing his lunch, causing damage to his backpack and kicking him in the head.

Parent 2 told the court on Thursday they were not made aware of the bullying until about a year ago, when having a conversation with Riley. “I do also remember them mentioning about kicking with a bag and lunch being squashed,” Parent 2 said. “Just kicking of the head … I had no idea how far that kicking had actually gone, I really don’t know what extent it was.”

Parent 1’s barrister disputed this, saying Parent 1 had emailed Parent 2 with information about the physical altercation shortly after it occurred. “I can accept it,” Parent 2 admitted.

The court heard Riley pleaded with Parent 2 to allow him to medically transition. The pair were in the car after a birthday party, and Riley chose to sit in the back seat. Riley became “very emotional” and told Parent 2 he had to use a separate toilet from other children at school because he does not “look like a boy”.

He said he planned to save up for top surgery when he became an adult. Riley told Parent 2 the legal proceedings were “my choice”.

The court heard Parent 2 failed to personally inform Riley that they would not consent to cross-sex hormone treatment. Asked whether delaying Riley’s access to cross-sex hormones until he turned 18 would have an affect on his emotional wellbeing, Parent 2 replied: “Potentially.”

Parent 2 said it would be an “unfortunate situation” if their relationship with their children deteriorated further as a result of their decision not to grant Riley access to the hormones.