Justice Names Names: Public Interest Triumphs in Landmark Family Law Decision on Gender-Affirming Care

🏛️ Introduction

In Re: Devin (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1F 368, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was asked to decide whether a media outlet could publicly identify a previously anonymized expert witness and hospital involved in highly sensitive family law proceedings concerning gender-affirming medical treatment for a child. This unopposed application raised fundamental questions about open justice, public interest, and the evolving landscape of family law secrecy provisions following the repeal of s 121 of the Family Law Act. Justice Strum’s decision underscores the Court's commitment to transparency where it does not compromise the welfare of the child.

📝 Facts & Issues

Facts:

• A parenting case (Re: Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211) involved a child’s proposed gender-affirming medical treatment.
• Justice Strum rejected the diagnosis and treatment recommendations of Associate Professor Michelle Telfer (anonymized as "Associate Professor L") and the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne ("Children’s Hospital").
• Nationwide News applied under s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to identify both the hospital and expert in its reporting.
• Neither parent, nor the Independent Children’s Lawyer, opposed the application; the expert and hospital also withdrew their opposition.

Issues:

1. Whether the identification of the expert and hospital should be approved under s 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975.
2. Whether such identification serves the public interest without harming the welfare of the child.
3. Whether embarrassment or reputational harm to the expert or hospital should prevent approval.

⚖️ Application of Law to Facts

Justice Strum applied s 114Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended), which prohibits public identification of witnesses unless court-approved. He noted that this section replaced s 121 but retained similar open justice considerations, referencing case law including AH & SS [2005] FamCA 854 and Re Lowe and Herald and Weekly Times Ltd (1995) FLC 92-592.

Key criteria from the law and submissions considered:

• Public Interest: The case involves issues of public concern—namely, gender-affirming care for minors and expert medical opinion that significantly influences such care. Identifying the expert and hospital allows public scrutiny, critical evaluation, and informed discourse (paras [21]–[46]).
• Welfare of the Child: No risk of child identification or harm was found. The child is no longer a patient of the hospital, and the identifying information was narrow in scope (paras [47]–[50]).
• Embarrassment Not a Justification: Embarrassment or reputational damage is not a valid reason to suppress identity under open justice principles, supported by Rush v Nationwide News [2018] FCA 357 and John Fairfax Group v Local Court (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 (paras [51]–[59]).

🔍 Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Strum reasoned that the public interest in transparent, informed debate on gender-affirming treatments outweighs any potential embarrassment to the expert or hospital:

• Associate Professor Telfer holds considerable public influence as an architect of national guidelines and an advocate for trans youth (para [28]).
• The Court was critical of her evidence and clinical model, citing inadequate diagnostic processes and ideological bias (paras [29]–[32], [36]–[37]).
• Transparency was necessary given conflicting judgments on similar matters (see Re CD [2024] VSC 456), especially where different courts reached opposing conclusions using evidence from the same institution (paras [61]–[63]).

Justice Strum further cited principles of open justice from Re W: Publication Application (1997) FLC 92-756, Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495, and Commissioner of AFP v Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46, emphasizing the importance of public confidence in court reasoning processes.

📘 Take-Home Lesson

This decision marks a pivotal clarification of the limits of anonymization in family law proceedings. When expert testimony shapes national medical standards, the public has a right to know who stands behind that expertise—particularly when judicial findings question its reliability. The case reaffirms that the Family Law Act's protective provisions must be balanced against the constitutional principle of open justice.

For professionals and policymakers, the case signals that transparency will prevail where public interest, professional accountability, and non-identification of children align.