{"title":"11岁儿童的性别肯定护理和治疗模式与“最佳利益”。","authors":"Russ Scott","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Re Devin [2025] the Family Court of Australia considered a case of an 11-year old biologically male child whose mother argued was gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers. Strum J found that despite the child attending for six years, the gender clinic failed to make a diagnosis of gender dysphoria until court proceedings had commenced. He also raised concerns about the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines of the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne which endorsed a gender-affirming model of care. In finding that gender dysphoria could be influenced by external factors, Strum J was critical of the expert witnesses called by the mother whose model of care to gender affirm \"unreservedly\" was an \"oddly binary approach.\" Strum J held that in exercising its jurisdiction, the Family Court was not concerned with the cause of transgender people, but only with what was in the best interests of the child.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"32 2","pages":"260-293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re Devin - The Gender-affirming Care and Treatment Model and the \\\"Best Interests\\\" of an 11-year-old Child.\",\"authors\":\"Russ Scott\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In Re Devin [2025] the Family Court of Australia considered a case of an 11-year old biologically male child whose mother argued was gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers. Strum J found that despite the child attending for six years, the gender clinic failed to make a diagnosis of gender dysphoria until court proceedings had commenced. He also raised concerns about the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines of the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne which endorsed a gender-affirming model of care. In finding that gender dysphoria could be influenced by external factors, Strum J was critical of the expert witnesses called by the mother whose model of care to gender affirm \\\"unreservedly\\\" was an \\\"oddly binary approach.\\\" Strum J held that in exercising its jurisdiction, the Family Court was not concerned with the cause of transgender people, but only with what was in the best interests of the child.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"32 2\",\"pages\":\"260-293\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Re Devin - The Gender-affirming Care and Treatment Model and the "Best Interests" of an 11-year-old Child.
In Re Devin [2025] the Family Court of Australia considered a case of an 11-year old biologically male child whose mother argued was gender dysphoric and should be prescribed puberty blockers. Strum J found that despite the child attending for six years, the gender clinic failed to make a diagnosis of gender dysphoria until court proceedings had commenced. He also raised concerns about the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines of the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne which endorsed a gender-affirming model of care. In finding that gender dysphoria could be influenced by external factors, Strum J was critical of the expert witnesses called by the mother whose model of care to gender affirm "unreservedly" was an "oddly binary approach." Strum J held that in exercising its jurisdiction, the Family Court was not concerned with the cause of transgender people, but only with what was in the best interests of the child.