ABSTRACT
This chapter applies the concept of children’s right to decisional privacy to analyse the judgment of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in the case of Re Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110. Re Jamie provided the first appellate opportunity to consider whether medical treatment for gender dysphoria was still a ‘special medical procedure’ that attracted the Family Court’s welfare jurisdiction under section 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The analysis examines the Full Court’s framing of the issues for determination, including how it pathologised the young person, Jamie, and focused on the scope of parental rights and responsibilities; the Court’s reasoning, which reflects a selective and rhetorical approach to children’s rights; court procedures that limited Jamie’s meaningful participation in the decision-making process; and how the Court communicated, and enabled Jamie to communicate, the decision. It is argued that, through its conclusion that the Family Court must remain involved in stage two treatment for gender dysphoria by determining the child’s capacity to consent to treatment, the Full Court in Re Jamie violated the decisional privacy rights of Jamie and other TGD children seeking to access stage two treatment.
