Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services v JWB

Last updated

Marion's Case
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameSecretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB
Decided6 May 1992
Citation(s) [1992] HCA 15, (1992) 175  CLR  218
Case history
Prior action(s)Re Marion (No 2) (1992) 17  Fam LR  336
Appealed from Family Court (Full Court)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ
Case opinions
(4:3) the decision to sterilize an intellectually disabled minor falls outside the ordinary scope of parental powers
(per Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey & Gaudron JJ.)
(6:1) the Family Court had jurisdiction to decide whether sterilization was in the best interests of the child
(per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron & McHugh JJ.)

Secretary of the Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB, commonly known as Marion's Case, [1] is a leading decision of the High Court of Australia, [2] concerning whether a child has the capacity to make decisions for themselves, and when this is not possible, who may make decisions for them regarding major medical procedures. It largely adopts the views in Gillick v West Norfolk Area Health Authority, a decision of the House of Lords in England and Wales. [3]

Contents

Background

"Marion", a pseudonym for the 14-year-old girl at the centre of this case, suffered from intellectual disabilities, severe deafness, epilepsy and other disorders. Her parents, a married couple from the Northern Territory sought an order from the Family Court of Australia authorising them to have Marion undergo a hysterectomy and an oophrectomy (removal of ovaries). The practical effect would be sterilisation and preventing Marion from being able to have children and many of the hormonal effects of adulthood.

Under the Family Law Act the primary concern for matters involving children is that the court must act in the child's best interests. The majority of the High Court made it clear that it was merely deciding a point of law and that the decision about what was in the child's "best interests" would be left to the Family Court of Australia after the case. [1] :p. 229

The main legal debate that arose was who has the legal authority to authorise the operation. Three options existed: the parents (as legal guardians of their daughter), Marion or an order of a competent court, such as the Family Court of Australia. The Full Court of the Family Court was asked to decide:

1.   Could the parents, as joint guardians authorize the sterilization procedure;
2.   If not, does the Family Court have jurisdiction to:
     (a)   authorize the carrying out of such a procedure;
     (b)   enlarge the powers, rights or duties of the parents to enable them to authorize such a procedure; or
     (c)   approve the consent of the Applicants, as to the proposed procedure.

The majority of the Family Court, Strauss and McCall JJ held that the parents, as joint guardians could authorize the sterilization procedure. Nicholson CJ held that the Family Court had jurisdiction to authorize the procedure. [4]

The department, together with the Attorney-General for Australia, argued that only a court could authorize such a major operation and that the Family Court jurisdiction included any matter relating to the welfare of a child even if it was not a dispute about custody, guardianship or access. [1] :p. 222

The parents, however, "argued that the decision to sterilise a child is not significantly different from other major decisions that parents and guardians have to make for children and that the involvement of the Family Court is optional and only of a 'supervisory nature'. Their argument was that, provided such a procedure is in the best interests of the child, parents as guardians can give lawful consent to a sterilisation on behalf of a mentally incompetent child." [1] :p. 231

Judgment

The High Court recognised the right of everyone to bodily integrity under national and international law, and made a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic surgical procedures as well as the duty of surrogates to act in the best interests of the incompetent patient.

In the case, the High Court ruled that while parents may consent to medical treatment for their children, the authority does not extend to treatment not in the child's best interests. Also, the Court held that if medical treatment has sterilisation as its principal objective, parents do not have the authority to consent on behalf of their child.

Obiter dictum

The statement by Deane J that parents may grant surrogate consent for the non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is obiter dictum and not part of the judgment. Male circumcision was not at issue in the case and no evidence or testimony was offered regarding male circumcision. [1] :p. 297

See also

Related Research Articles

Laws restricting, regulating, or banning circumcision, some dating back to ancient times, have been enacted in many countries and communities. In modern states, circumcision is generally presumed to be legal, but laws pertaining to assault or child custody have been applied in cases involving circumcision. In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision of children, proponents of laws in favor of the procedure often point to the rights of the parents or practitioners, namely the right of freedom of religion. Those against the procedure point to the boy's right of freedom from religion. In several court cases, judges have pointed to the irreversible nature of the act, the grievous harm to the boy's body, and the right to self-determination, and bodily integrity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informed consent</span> Process for obtaining subject approval prior to treatment or research

Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law and media studies, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research and to disclose a person's medical information.

A parenting plan is a child custody plan that is negotiated by parents, and which may be included in a marital separation agreement or final decree of divorce. Especially when a separation is acrimonious to begin with, specific agreements about who will discharge these responsibilities and when and how they are to be discharged can reduce the need for litigation. Avoiding litigation spares parties not only the financial and emotional costs of litigation but the uncertainty of how favorable or unfavorable a court's after-the-fact decision will be. Moreover, the agreement itself can authorize the employment of dispute-resolution methods, such as arbitration and mediation, that may be less costly than litigation.

Children's rights or the rights of children are a subset of human rights with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to minors. The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines a child as "any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Children's rights includes their right to association with both parents, human identity as well as the basic needs for physical protection, food, universal state-paid education, health care, and criminal laws appropriate for the age and development of the child, equal protection of the child's civil rights, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of the child's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, color, ethnicity, or other characteristics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compulsory sterilization</span> Government policies which force people to undergo surgical sterilization

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, is a government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done through surgical procedures. Several countries implemented sterilization programs in the early 20th century. Although such programs have been made illegal in most countries of the world, instances of forced or coerced sterilizations persist.

Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis. The ethics of circumcision in neonates and children is a source of much controversy.

A legal guardian is a person who has been appointed by a court or otherwise has the legal authority to make decisions relevant to the personal and property interests of another person who is deemed incompetent, called a ward. For example, a legal guardian might be granted the authority to make decisions regarding a ward's housing or medical care or manage the ward's finances. Guardianship is most appropriate when an alleged ward is functionally incapacitated, meaning they have a lagging skill critical to performing certain tasks, such as making important life decisions. Guardianship intends to serve as a safeguard to protect the ward.

Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor before attaining the age of majority is freed from control by their parents or guardians, and the parents or guardians are freed from responsibility for their child. Minors are normally considered legally incompetent to enter into contracts and to handle their own affairs. Emancipation overrides that presumption and allows emancipated children to legally make certain decisions on their own behalf.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gillick competence</span> Medical legal term

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.

In law, a ward is a minor or incapacitated adult placed under the protection of a legal guardian or government entity, such as a court. Such a person may be referenced as a "ward of the court".

<i>E (Mrs) v Eve</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

E (Mrs) v Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 is a judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding a mother's request for the consent of the court to have her disabled daughter sterilized. This was a landmark case which is influential in Canadian legal decisions involving proxy-consented, non-therapeutic medical procedures performed on people of diminished mental capacity.

In family law, contact, visitation and access are synonym terms that denotes the time that a child spends with the noncustodial parent, according to an agreed or court specified parenting schedule. The visitation term is not used in a shared parenting arrangement where the mother and father have joint physical custody.

<i>Re Alex</i> Judgement of the Family Court of Australia

Re Alex was a legal case decided in the Family Court of Australia on 13 April 2004. It examined the rights of a thirteen-year-old adolescent affirming his maleness and seeking hormonal medical treatment "Sex Affirmation Treatment."

Compulsory sterilization in Canada has a documented history in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. In 2017, sixty indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies.

A surrogate decision maker, also known as a health care proxy or as agents, is an advocate for incompetent patients. If a patient is unable to make decisions for themselves about personal care, some agent must make decisions for them. If there is a durable power of attorney for health care, the agent appointed by that document is authorized to make health care decisions within the scope of authority granted by the document. If people have court-appointed guardians with authority to make health care decisions, the guardian is the authorized surrogate.

Forced adoption is the practice of removing children permanently from their parents and the subsequent adoption of those children, following intervention by the Children's Services department of a Local Authority in the United Kingdom.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex human rights reports</span>

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

In the Law of England and Wales, best interest decisions are decisions made on behalf of people who do not have mental capacity to make them for themselves at the time the decision needs to be taken. Someone who has the capacity to make a decision is said to be "capacitous". Since 2007, there has been a dedicated court with jurisdiction over mental capacity: the Court of Protection, although it mostly deals with adults. Most applications to make decisions on behalf of a child are still dealt with by the Family Court.

Parenting law in Australia encompasses a number of areas of law including:

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (Marion's case) [1992] HCA 15 , (1992) 175 CLR 218(6 May 1992), High Court.
  2. LawCite records.
  3. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1985] UKHL 7 , [1986] AC 112, House of Lords (UK).
  4. Re Marion (No 2) (1992) 17 Fam LR 336.