Most parents want what is best for their child. If a child breaks their arm parents need no special permission to have it operated on and fixed. However consent to perform surgery on special medical conditions is not so easy. In a recent Family Law case [Sean and Russell (Special Medical Procedures)] the castration of two boys was presented to the Courts for a decision.

With headlines of “Judge Allows Parents to have Boys to be Castrated” Kim Arlington, journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald sensationally reports on a Family Court decision by Justice Murphy delivered 26 October 2010.  The facts of this case are special, sad and serious and belie the sensationalist headlines. 

In respect of 2 applications heard by the Court at the same time 2 young children known by the pseudonyms “Russell” (an 18 month year old boy) and “Sean” (a 3 ½ year old boy) had both been diagnosed as having Denys-Drash syndrome.  It was the specialist medical advice received by parents of both these children that the gonads of the boys be removed for their own health and to prevent some of the effects of the Denys-Drash syndrome.  It is thought that these two children are the only two people in Australia that suffer from this condition.  The medical evidence was that the boys would develop of tumors (cancer) in their kidneys and their testes.

It was acknowledged that the removal of the testes would render both of the children infertile, however the consensus of medical opinion was that by reason of the syndrome each child was almost certainly likely to be infertile even without the proposed surgery.  The parents of the children applied to the Family Court for approval and authorisation in order to instruct the treating doctors to conduct the surgery.

Comment from Mark Streeter Sydney Family Law Lawyer

Justice Murphy, after an extensive review of the previous cases and legislation relating to this area of the law found that the proposed treatment was more consistent with securing the children’s best long term outcomes both physically and psychologically and the authorisation of the proposed treatment was in the children’s best interests. The Judge made orders authorising the treatment.

In order to protect the identity of both the children, parents and treating doctors, the names of these parties were anonymised.  Section 121(9) of the Family Law Act 1975 prohibits publication of information which identifies a party in Family Court proceedings.

 

Protecting people from violence is a significant role of Australian laws. The protection of women and children from domestic violence is a topic often covered in the media. Sexual assault is another. A recent report is hoped to be a step forward in addressing inconsistencies or areas for improvement in our State and Federal laws. Many Family laws intersect or cross over with other laws which can create confusion.

The joint Australian Law Reform and New South Wales Law Reform Commissions delivered their final report to the Attorney General on 10 October 2010. The report was released to the public in November 2010.

This 1,500 page, 2 volume report sought to comprehensively review the various Federal and State Laws. It's objective was reducing violence in the community and particularly in relation to women and children.  

This process is one of the ways in which changes to laws are made in Australia.  This comprehensive review of the existing laws identifies weaknesses and areas of potential improvement and then made 186 recommendations for improvement.

Areas include confidentiality, rape, family dispute resolution, bail, trial process, homicide, breach of protection orders. For the full text of the report click here

Family Court takes the Compliance of Orders seriously

On January 10th, 2006, following their divorce, Mr Rand + Mrs Rand were given specific orders by the Family Court pertaining to the settlement of their property.  On June 25th, 2007 Mr Rand was found guilty of Contempt of Orders and was to “be imprisoned until discharged by order of the Family Court of Australia” .... potentially  for the term of his natural life!

Mr Rand appealed the conviction and the sentence was stayed providing that he entered into a bond and didn’t travel outside Sydney.

Three years later on the 20th of April 2010, Mr Rand’s appeal was presented to the Full Court of the Family Court. Finally, on the 3rd of September 2010, judgement was delivered in favour of Mr Rand ensuring that the convictions for Contempt of Orders were overturned.

Interestingly, the reason that the conviction was overturned was that the Full Court found that the original order given on January 6th, 2006 was not sufficiently clear and was therefore too ambiguous to find a breach by way of contempt of the Order.

Whilst we agree that the current judgement rights a wrong, Mr Rand will not receive any compensation for the limitations placed upon his liberty for the past 3 years and to this extent, the delay has prejudiced his personal and financial interests.

This is a strong reminder the Family Court takes Compliance with Orders in relation to children and property extremely seriously.