AB v CD & Ors

AB v CD & Ors

Parents retain the legal ability to consent to puberty blocker treatment for their child, even if the child is Gillick competent, unless overriding the child's decision. There is no legal or best practice requirement for court authorisation where parents consent and there is no clinical disagreement or finely balanced decision.

Parties
Applicant: AB; First Respondent: CD; Second Respondent: The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust; Third Respondent: University College London NHS Foundation Trust; Fourth Respondent: XY; Advocate to the Court: Cafcass
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted
Legal Topics
Parental Consent, Gillick Competence, Puberty Blockers, Gender Dysphoria, Court Authorisation, Children's Rights
Family Law Medical Law Human Rights Parental Consent Gillick Competence Puberty Blockers Gender Dysphoria Court Authorisation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Applicant

CD

First Respondent

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust

Second Respondent

University College London NHS Foundation Trust

Third Respondent

XY

Fourth Respondent

Cafcass

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do parents retain the legal ability to consent to puberty blocker treatment for their child?
  2. 2 Does the administration of puberty blockers fall into a special category of medical treatment requiring court authorisation or good practice application to court?

Ratio Decidendi

Parents retain the legal ability to consent to puberty blocker treatment for their child, even if the child is Gillick competent, unless overriding the child's decision. There is no legal or best practice requirement for court authorisation where parents consent and there is no clinical disagreement or finely balanced decision.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted

Orders

  • Parents retain the legal ability to consent to puberty blocker treatment for their child, even if the child is Gillick competent, unless overriding the child's decision.
  • There is no legal or best practice requirement for court authorisation where parents consent and there is no clinical disagreement or finely balanced decision.