Reference no: EM133977121

NURBN 1012 - Case Study - Imogen.

Case Study - Imogen. Imogen, aged 16 years and 8 months, was assigned male at birth but identifies as female. Imogen has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by her treating doctors and was medically assessed to be capable of giving informed consent. Imogen has been receiving Stage 1 (puberty suppression) therapy since she was 15 years of age. She has expressed her consistent wish to proceed to Stage 2 ( hormonal) therapy to affirm her gender. A dispute between Imogen's father and her mother as to whether Imogen should commence Stage 2 therapy has brought proceedings to the Family court of Australia. Imogen's father supports her wish to undergo gender affirming therapy. He served an application to grant Imogen 'parental responsibility' under s65 D of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to allow Imogen to make her own decision or, in the alternative, to seek a court order authorising the therapy. Imogen's mother has disputed the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and believed that Imogen was not 'Gillick competent'. Imogen's mother does not consider Imogen competent to make a fully informed decision about accessing Stage 2 therapy. Imogen's mother does not consent to Imogen receiving Stage 2 therapy; however, she did not seek a mandatory injunction to stop the therapy, the mother did though express her wish that Imogen undergo psychotherapy instead.

With respect to Imogen's particular circumstances, the questions before the court were:

1. Where there is a dispute about consent for a child presenting with gender dysphoria, is it mandatory to make an application to the court to resolve that dispute.

2. If Imogen is found to be Gillick competent, can she make her own decisions without her parents' consent?

3. If Imogen's consent is not sufficient on its own, is it preferable to grant her 'parental responsibility' to make her own decisions or make an order to authorise treatment on the basis of her interests.