Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Australia. Family Court

Publications and source records attributed to Australia. Family Court.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Attorney-General (QLD) v. Parents, In re S.

The Family Court of Australia ruled that parents may authorize a hysterectomy for their mentally retarded 12-year old daughter without first seeking court approval. The child resided in a residential facility, although she remained in her parents' legal custody. She functioned at a cognitive level of approximately one year of age, and exhibited behavioral disorders including poor hygiene and fecal smearing. Although the child was well-developed physically, she had not begun menstruating. The Court rejected the provision of contraceptives and assistance with menstrual hygiene as an option, and concluded that involuntary sterilization would be in the best interest of the child because the child would not be able to cope with a pregnancy, nor the responsibilities of rearing a child. The Court traced the development of case law involving involuntary sterilization of minors in Australia and Great Britain.

Adolescent↗

Re Jane.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adolescent↗

In re a Teenager, 29 August 1988.

A physically healthy but severely mentally retarded handicapped girl, aged 15, sought through a "next friend" an injunction to prevent her parents from authorizing a doctor to perform a hysterectomy upon her. The parents sought the hysterectomy in order to prevent the onset of menstruation, which they believed would seriously affect her development and quality of life. The Family Court of Australia dismissed the application for an injunction. It rejected the argument that reasonable alternatives should be tried before the hysterectomy was performed. It held that parents have a right and duty to make major decisions about medical treatment, including major operations, whether their children are mentally retarded or not. It ruled that a Court should interfere only in exceptional circumstances and that there was nothing warranting interference in this case. It concluded that the benefits of the operation greatly outweighed the risks of the operation as well as the risks of alternative treatments.

Adolescent↗