"Morgan’s Milestone: Family Court Affirms Teen's Right to Gender-Affirming Care and Autonomy"

In Re: Morgan, the Federal Circuit and Family Court was asked to determine whether a 16-year-old transgender girl, Morgan, was Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 gender-affirming hormone therapy, despite her father's religious objections. The judgment of Anderson J addresses pressing issues at the intersection of family law, gender identity, medical ethics, and children's rights. The Court’s ruling underscores the primacy of a child’s best interests and autonomy in such deeply personal decisions.

📋 Facts and Issues:

🧾 Facts:

• Morgan, born in 2008, identifies as female and has been receiving Stage 1 treatment (puberty blockers) since 2019.
• The mother sought orders confirming Morgan's capacity to consent to Stage 2 treatment (oestrogen therapy) and a change of name.
• The father opposed the application on religious grounds, initially disputing Morgan’s diagnosis and capacity.
• Medical professionals confirmed Morgan's diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria and assessed her as Gillick competent.
• Morgan had been under suicidal distress due to delays in treatment and lack of paternal support.
• Final parenting orders from 2018 granted shared parental responsibility, but the father had not been involved in Morgan’s care since 2019.

❓ Issues:

1. Does Morgan meet the criteria for Gender Dysphoria as defined in DSM-5?
2. Is Morgan Gillick competent to consent to Stage 2 gender-affirming treatment?
3. Is Stage 2 treatment in Morgan’s best interests?
4. Should the 2018 final parenting orders be discharged or varied?
5. Should the mother have sole parental responsibility?
6. Should Morgan’s name change be legally recognised?

⚖️ Application of Law:

🔹 Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis:

The Court relied on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and the uncontested expert reports of Dr B and Dr D, who had treated Morgan since 2019. The father ultimately conceded the diagnosis during closing submissions ([40]–[49], [56]).

🔹 Gillick Competence:

The Court applied the test from Gillick v West Norfolk and Secretary, Department of Health v J.W.B. and S.M.B. (Marion’s Case):

A child can consent to medical treatment if they have sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand its nature and consequences ([25], [57]–[63]).

Morgan had clearly articulated her understanding of treatment risks, alternatives, fertility implications, and long-term consequences. The father, by the end, conceded Morgan’s competence, although the Court stated it would have found her competent regardless ([58]–[61]).

🔹 Best Interests and Stage 2 Treatment:

Under s 60CA and s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, the Court concluded treatment was necessary for Morgan’s welfare:

• Without Stage 2 treatment, Morgan faced serious mental health risks, including suicide ([65]–[73]).
• Experts testified that further delay would damage both her physical health (due to bone loss from blockers) and emotional well-being ([66]–[72]).

🔹 Parenting Orders and s 65DAAA:

Despite previous final orders, the Court found a significant change in circumstances, including:

• Total breakdown of father-daughter relationship.
• Father’s non-involvement since 2019.
• Morgan’s complex health needs solely managed by the mother ([78]–[82]).

The father consented to the variation, satisfying the criteria under s 65DAAA(3) ([34], [78]).

🔹 Sole Parental Responsibility:

Given the father's lack of involvement and opposition grounded solely in religious belief, the Court awarded sole parental responsibility to the mother ([85]).

🔹 Change of Name:

The Court found the change consistent with Morgan’s identity and best interests, further enabled by the mother’s sole parental responsibility ([86]–[88]).

🧠 Judgment Analysis and Reasoning:

Justice Anderson delivered a thorough and empathetic decision, emphasizing:

• The clinical consensus on Gender Dysphoria and Morgan’s understanding of treatment risks.
• The irrelevance of religious objections when determining a child’s medical best interests.
• The need to resolve the case urgently, given Morgan’s suicidality and distress caused by delays ([10], [71], [77]).
• The contributions of a supportive parent and the importance of therapeutic relationships in health outcomes ([91]).

The Court applied Re: Kelvin and Re: Jamie, confirming that where there is parental disagreement, the Court must determine Gillick competence and best interests ([19]–[26]).

📚 Key Authorities Cited:

• Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
• Secretary, Department of Health v J.W.B. and S.M.B (1992) 175 CLR 218 ("Marion’s Case")
• Re: Kelvin (2017) 57 Fam LR 503
• Re: Jamie (2013) 50 Fam LR 369
• Rice & Asplund (1979) 6 Fam LR 570 – on reconsidering final orders
• Chapman v Palmer (1978) 4 Fam LR 462 – name change principles
• Bell v Tavistock [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 – competency in gender-affirming treatment

🎓 Take-Home Lesson:

The Family Court will uphold a mature minor’s right to self-determination when supported by expert evidence, even against parental religious objections. The child’s welfare remains paramount. Legal objections to gender-affirming treatment must be grounded in evidence, not ideology.