Journal article
Ca(u)se of gender-affirming healthcare for children: Reconciling ‘best interests’ and the ‘public interest’ in Re Devin
Australian journal of human rights, Vol.First online
12/03/2026
Metrics
1 Record Views
Abstract
The case of Re Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211 has reignited debate about the role of Australia's family courts in medical treatment for transgender and gender diverse children. This article challenges the distinction that Strum J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) sought to make between ‘case’ and ‘cause’: between the competing applications of Devin's parents for parenting orders, and the broader issue of transgender children's rights and access to gender-affirming healthcare. It is argued that Strum J's ‘repeated exhortations’ that ‘the Court was deciding a case involving the best interests of the child and not the cause of transgender people’ are undermined by his Honour's subsequent orders made ‘in the public interest’ in Re Devin [No 2] [2025] FedCFamC1F 368, authorising the identification of an expert witness and a children's hospital. This article concludes that, even if this was simply a ‘case’ about Devin's best interests, the proceedings embodied a protectionist ‘cause’, where transgender children's rights were all but invisible.
Details
- Title
- Ca(u)se of gender-affirming healthcare for children: Reconciling ‘best interests’ and the ‘public interest’ in Re Devin
- Creators
- Georgina Dimopoulos - Southern Cross University
- Publication Details
- Australian journal of human rights, Vol.First online
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Identifiers
- 991013370448002368
- Copyright
- © 2026 Australian Human Rights Institute.
- Academic Unit
- Centre for Children and Young People; Faculty of Business, Law and Arts; Law
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Journal article