Best Interests Before Belief: Court Rejects Puberty Blockers Amid Parental Conflict Over Child’s Gender Identity

🧾 Introduction

In Re: Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211, Justice Strum of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) was tasked with resolving a deeply contested parenting dispute centring on a child's gender identity, parental responsibility, and proposed gender-affirming medical intervention. The mother sought sole parental responsibility for medical decisions to allow the administration of puberty blockers to the child, while the father – supported by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) – opposed such treatment, questioning the validity of the child’s gender dysphoria diagnosis. This case illuminates how courts balance scientific uncertainty, ideological influence, and the "best interests of the child" under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), particularly in the sensitive context of gender-diverse children.

📋 Facts and Issues

Facts

• The child, Devin (born 2013), lives with the mother and is socially transitioned to female.
• The mother supports gender-affirming care and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria by psychologist Dr N.
• The father contests the diagnosis, asserting that the child is gender fluid or exploratory, not dysphoric.
• The ICL supports the father's position and opposes puberty blockers.
• The mother sought sole parental responsibility to pursue gender-affirming treatment (Stage 1 puberty blockers) at the Children’s Hospital Gender Service.
• The father sought sole parental responsibility for all major decisions and to prevent gender-related treatment without court oversight.

Issues

1. Does the child meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria/incongruence?
2. Should Stage 1 puberty blockers be authorised?
3. Who should hold parental responsibility?
4. What living arrangements are in the best interests of the child?

📚 Application of Law

Relevant Legislation

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 60CA (best interests), 60CC (factors to consider), 61DA (equal shared parental responsibility).
• Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – s 140 (standard of proof).
• Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 (Vic) – raised contextually by the mother.
• Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) – regarding protections for gender identity.

Key Precedents Cited

• Re Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110 – stage 1 puberty suppression is reversible but not without scrutiny.
• Re Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258 – shift toward affirming treatment under certain conditions.
• Re Imogen (No 6) [2020] FamCA 761 – clarified the requirement for court involvement in disputes.
• Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 – applied regarding high standard of proof due to gravity of consequences.

🔍 Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Strum undertook a rigorous analysis of the diagnostic process, medical evidence, and expert testimony. He found:

• The child was not properly diagnosed with gender dysphoria/incongruence.
• Expert Dr N failed to conduct a biopsychosocial assessment and heavily relied on maternal reports, which were found to be inconsistent or unreliable.
• Evidence of contextual social influence, such as exposure to a gender-affirming peer group (HH Service), was not adequately considered.
• The diagnosis was deemed rushed and possibly influenced by trial timelines rather than objective clinical criteria.
• Concerns were raised about bias in expert witnesses.
• Dr N and Associate Professor L were identified as advocates rather than impartial experts, with repeated breaches of the expert witness duty under Rule 7.18 of the Family Law Rules.
• The Cass Review (UK), which cautioned against early medical intervention without comprehensive assessment, was heavily cited and endorsed as a credible, cautious approach.
• Puberty blockers were rejected on both legal and medical grounds:
• The Court found no adequate basis to conclude that they were in Devin’s best interests.
• Risks such as irreversible bone density effects, uncertain fertility preservation, and experimental aspects of treatment outweighed potential benefits.
• Parental Responsibility and Living Arrangements:
• The Court awarded sole parental responsibility to the father, citing his measured, non-ideological approach.
• Devin was ordered to live with the father and have regular time with the mother.
• Extensive orders governed decision-making, school arrangements, and limitations on gender-related medical treatment without court approval.

⚖️ Judgment Outcome

Justice Strum held that:

• The child does not meet the standard of gender dysphoria/incongruence on the balance of probabilities (Briginshaw standard applied).
• Puberty blockers are not approved.
• The father is granted sole parental responsibility, with procedural requirements for consulting the mother.
• Orders prohibit both parents from initiating gender-related medical treatment or changing identity documentation.

(See: Judgment [131]–[133], [145]–[147], [129]–[130])

📌 Take-Home Lessons

• "Best interests" remain paramount, not ideological affirmation – courts must assess based on clinical evidence and not advocacy.
• Expert independence is crucial. Courts will discount opinions seen as biased or lacking rigorous methodology.
• Judicial scepticism of gender-affirming treatment for young children is increasing, especially in light of international reviews like the Cass Report.
• Parents must avoid unilateral action on contentious medical issues and remain within the confines of shared responsibility or court orders.