Sibling ‘egg pact’ centre of transgender Family Court case debating hormones, surgery

A 10-year-old girl made a pact with her sibling, who wishes to become a boy, that she would one day harvest her eggs so the sibling could have babies, court hears.

A hearing this week has learned a transgender child was prescribed an oral contraceptive pill when they were 13 to stop their menses.

A 10-year-old girl made a pact with her sibling, who wishes to take cross-sex hormones to become a boy, that she would one day harvest her eggs so the sibling could have babies, a court has heard.

The revelation came as part of a highly complex family law matter in which one of the children’s parents wishes to prescribe testosterone so the transgender child, who is biologically female, can medically transition to become a boy.

The other parent opposes the prescription of the cross-sex hormones, previously telling the child they will “grow out of it”.

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.

A hearing before Justice Peter Tree this week has learnt the transgender child, who The Australian will refer to by the pseudonym Riley, was prescribed an oral contraceptive pill Primolut, when aged 13.

When Justice Tree asked whether it was because Riley was sexually active, Parent 1 responded: “No, it was to stop periods.”

The court heard Riley had an existing agreement with his younger sister, who The Australian will refer to as Imogen, that she will harvest her eggs if he ever decides he wishes to have children. The pact was made when Imogen was 10 or 11 years old, the court heard.

Parent 1 gave evidence on Tuesday that while Riley does not wish to ever have children of his own, he has been repeatedly asked by clinicians about his future. As such, he has been forced to come up with a plan for future fertility.

“They continue to have a pact between them,” Parent 1 said.

“‘I would do this for you if you ever want it’.”

Parent 2’s barrister asked Parent 1 whether they accepted the pact as an “immature perspective” for Riley to hold. “No,” Parent 1 replied. “I think it shows he had already given some thought (to it).”

The barrister also posited that the agreement put “tremendous responsibility” on Imogen’s shoulders, to which Parent 1 said: “I can’t control what they discuss in private amongst each other, and what they decide together.

“I have said to him that I’d prefer he did it himself,” Parent 1 said later in the cross-examination.

“I think if something is genuinely offered from one person to another, it’s not kind for me to say anything.”

Parent 1 disagreed with the suggestion that they had failed to have the best interests of Riley and Imogen when they did not “disabuse” the pact.

Riley has previously told Parent 1 that he wishes to take testosterone in order to medically transition, and “wants every surgery available”. While Parent 1 says they “wants what (Riley) wants”, including cross-sex hormones, they do not wish for him to undertake top surgery until he is at least 18 years old.

Riley has suffered from severe anxiety, depression and has previously not wished to leave the house at all, the court heard. He has pushed back on school work and shown disruptive behaviours.

He has never been tested for autism or ADHD due to financial constraints, Parent 1 said, and that at some points the only thing stopping him from killing himself was “a fear of not knowing what the afterlife is”. “When he was very depressed in 2020 we weren’t sure if he would be alive when we opened his door in the morning,” Parent 1 said.

The court was also told Imogen has severe mental health issues, which had previously led to serious self-harm.

Parent 2’s barrister on Tuesday accused Parent 1 of failing to seek proper mental health support for Imogen in early-2022.

When the hearing continued on Wednesday, the court heard Parent 2 accuse Parent 1 of “body-shaming” the two children.

Under cross-examination, Parent 2 said they became concerned when Parent 1 bought Riley breast binders after he had started to go through puberty.

“At that time (Riley) was starting puberty and instead of embracing the changes … (Parent 1) decided to rather shame her through … behaviour and the things … bought like binders,” Parent 2 told the court.

Parent 2 clarified they were uncertain specifically when the binders were purchased.

Parent 2 agreed they had “grave concerns for (Riley and Imogen’s) psychological wellbeing”.

When pressed by Parent 1’s barrister on Wednesday morning, Parent 2 admitted to not having read their former partner’s affidavit in full because it is a “traumatic document”.

“Some of the information is overwhelming,” they said, also admitting to having not read the full report of one of the experts.

The hearing continues.