More than a decade after the Re Jamie ruling reshaped the legal framework for accessing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the Honourable Diana Bryant’s acknowledgement of her “doubts” about aspects of the decision signals a pivotal moment for both family law and paediatric gender medicine . . . .
The recent public reflections of former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the Honourable Diana Bryant AO KC, have reignited debate surrounding the landmark decision in Re Jamie (2013) and its continuing impact on the treatment pathways for gender-distressed children and adolescents. More than a decade after the ruling reshaped the legal framework for accessing puberty blockers and crosssex hormones, Bryant’s acknowledgement of her “doubts” about aspects of the decision signals a pivotal moment for both family law and paediatric gender medicine. Her comments arrive amidst a rapidly evolving international evidence base and renewed scrutiny of clinical practices, inviting a re-examination of the assumptions that shaped Re Jamie and the role of courts in adjudicating complex medical questions. For clinicians, family law practitioners, policymakers, and those working at the intersection of child development and legal oversight, Bryant’s remarks present an important opportunity for reflection. They underscore the widening gap between the evidence available in 2013 and the emerging data now influencing global clinical guidelines, while also raising fundamental questions about how best to safeguard young people navigating gender dysphoria. This article explores why Bryant’s intervention matters, how the field has shifted, and why a more coherent legislative framework may be necessary to ensure that decisions of profound and potentially irreversible consequence are made with clarity, transparency, and the child’s longterm wellbeing at the centre. Read on for Clare Rowe’s comments.
Revisiting Re Jamie: Why Diana Bryant’s Recent Reflections Matter for Family Law and Clinical Practice – By Clare Rowe, Educational & Developmental Psychologist, Rowe and Associates
Revisiting Re Jamie: Why Diana Bryant’s Recent Reflections Matter for Family Law and Clinical Practice – By Clare Rowe, Educational & Developmental Psychologist, Rowe and Associates
Family Therapy Orders in Family Law Proceedings can assist with improved communication and listening skills; understanding each other’s needs; and transitioning through family separation.
Judges need an extraordinary degree of knowledge and experience. They have a very tough job in making decisions for families and children at a time of great vulnerability.
Being an FDRP and Parenting Coordinator allows a unique opportunity to assist families at what is likely to be an extremely stressful transition in their lifetime.
A Single Expert Witness appointed by the court has the opportunity to intervene, assist and support children during what could be the most difficult time in their childhoods
Cognitive bias is held to be the greatest risk to forensic neutrality and objectivity in child custody and other forensic work. Many parents often feel that the report writer is biased when a report comes in against that parent’s wishes.
Post-Separation Parenting Smartphone Apps are being mandated by some judges as the primary mode of communication in high-conflict cases. Family lawyers, mediators and mental health professionals are also increasingly being asked by clients about post-separation apps.
It is essential for psychologists involved in providing treatment for children whose parents are involved in Family Law litigation that they be more forensically informed.
The timing of our advice when understanding our clients is critical when providing guidance and support to separating parties.