Mother calls off court battle to allow teenager to take puberty blockers

The mother of a gender dysphoric child has abruptly withdrawn a Family Court case to allow the child, who ‘socially transitioned’ at the age of four, to take puberty blockers.

The mother of a 13 year old girl with gender dysphoria has abruptly withdrawn an application seeking a Family Court order to allow the child to take puberty blockers.

The mother of a 13-year-old with gender dysphoria has abruptly withdrawn an application seeking a Family Court order to allow the child to take puberty blockers, after trying to have the independent children’s lawyer assigned to the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.

The girl, who is being treated at a Melbourne hospital, “socially transitioned” at the age of four and is seeking medical treatment to put off the onset of puberty.

Hospital policy prevents medical treatment from continuing unless a Family Court order is ­obtained, or the girl’s father – who is not involved with the child – consents.

The mother, who is in full support of the treatment, unsuccessfully attempted to have Susan Hamilton-Green, who is the court-appointed independent children’s lawyer, thrown off the case earlier this month.

Ms Hamilton-Green believed the court must further analyse “the risks and the advantages” of the treatment before making a court order in favour.

Her barrister, Belle Lane, told the court the “the science isn’t settled” on the treatment of gender dysphoric children.

But while the case, which would have been one of the first of its kind, was expected to go to trial on Monday, the mother unexpectedly withdrew her application last week without a clear explanation.

Earlier this month, the mother’s barrister, Robin Smith, told the court the child was suicidal.

“In 1974, Gough Whitlam created this court to be a helping court,” he said.

“With the greatest respect, it doesn’t feel like we’d be helping this mother or this child if we allowed this matter to proceed.”

Mr Smith continued to say the longer the proceedings went on, the “more anxiety it causes the child, the more anxiety it causes her only parent”.

Mr Smith told the court the girl’s father did not explicitly stand against the treatment but had failed to sign the appropriate documentation.

University of Queensland emeritus professor of law Patrick Parkinson told The Australian the decision to prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones was “extraordinarily serious”.

“(Parents) need to understand the prospective benefits, but also the very grave and serious risks and consequences of this form of treatment,” he said.

“Once cross-sex hormones are prescribed they are very likely to lead to long-term infertility and impact on sexual function and a range of other ­adverse medical ­effects.”

Professor Patrick Parkinson. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/The Australian

Victorian barrister Belle Lane.

As such, she argued, the courts must reassess how scientific ­advancements rejecting a gender-affirming model of care should apply to the family law system.

“The evidence base around what is called ‘gender-affirming treatment’ has moved rapidly and much more is known about the asserted benefits of the medical pathway and risks,” Ms Lane wrote, adding: “Alternative treatment pathways have returned to prominence.”