FD25P00172 and FD25P00173 - [2025] EWHC 1325 (Fam)

In this matter I am concerned with an application by the parents of BTN. B turned 17 years old in May 2025. The applications before the Court are for orders under the Children Act 1989 and / or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. Principally, the parents seek a declaration that B lacks capacity to consent to the medical treatment which she is currently receiving. That treatment comprises Hormone Replacement Therapy (hereafter “HRT”) which, in the present context, fits broadly within the category of “cross-sex hormone” gender affirming treatment.

The applicants, ATN and NTT, are represented by Mr Vikram Sachdeva of King’s Counsel and Mr Rhys Hadden of counsel. B instructs solicitors directly and is represented by Ms Deirdre Fottrell of King’s Counsel and Ms Charlotte Baker of counsel. Ms Kay Demery remains appointed as Children’s Guardian to perform the functions under FPR 2010 r. 16.21(2).

These proceedings are running in parallel with an application by the father in the Administrative Court for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of B’s General Practitioner to prescribe HRT to children and young people who seek gender affirming treatment. An anonymity order has been made in those proceedings. On 23 March 2025, I adjourned the application to apply for permission for judicial review to await the determination of the applications in the Family Division. The Administrative Court has now received a further application for expedition of the judicial review proceedings. That application is opposed by the Defendant in those proceedings.

This case management hearing is concerned with whether permission should be given, pursuant to s. 13 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (hereafter “the 2014 Act”) for the instruction of expert evidence in these proceedings. All parties submit that it is necessary for permission to be given to instruct an expert endocrinologist to assist the court, although there is a dispute as to the identity of the appropriate expert. The applicants also apply for permission to instruct an expert psychiatrist to assess whether B has capacity to take decisions with respect to HRT and with respect to the psychiatric impact of continuing such treatment. In addition to the applications for permission to instruct an expert psychiatrist and an expert endocrinologist, on behalf of the applicants, Mr Sachdeva and Mr Hadden contend that, in circumstances where this is what they characterise as a “medical treatment case”, the parties should each be permitted to instruct their own experts in those respective fields.