A 12-year-old girl in residential care in Queensland should be allowed to have an abortion, a court has ruled, after a judge found she was not capable of making the decision herself.
The anonymised judgment, delivered in July but published on Friday, is at least the third case this year where the court has authorised a termination for a girl aged 12 or under.
Justice Melanie Hindman found while the girl, referred to as G, “has been clear at all times … that she does not wish to continue with the pregnancy”, she ultimately was not satisfied the child was “Gillick competent”.
Gillick competency is a legal principle that, according to Queensland’s Youth Justice Department, refers to a child’s capacity to understand and provide consent for health care decisions.
The Supreme Court of Queensland handed down its decision in Brisbane. (ABC News: Chris Gillette)
If a child is considered not Gillick competent, the consent of the child’s parent or guardian — which in this case is the state — is required.
The case was brought forward by an unknown hospital and health service in Queensland to determine whether the girl was Gillick competent and, if not, for authorisation for the termination.
Court hears ‘G’ struggled to retain information
Justice Hindman ruled the girl was unable to provide consent.
Where to find help:
“The doctor formed the view that G has appropriate health literacy for someone of her age and has sufficient capacity to consent to her preferred contraceptive, but that she is unable to sufficiently retain information about the termination of pregnancy procedures and particularly the associated risks and therefore does not meet the threshold of capacity for consent to the procedure,” Justice Hindman wrote.
“This opinion appears to be strongly based on a comment by G during the second appointment to the effect that, ‘I am listening. But as I hear what you are saying, it disappears.’
“Thus, the concern seemed to be that G did not have a comprehensive retention of understanding of the risks associated with a termination that would allow her to make an informed decision about whether to undergo such a procedure.”
Long child protection history
Justice Hindman wrote the girl’s parents were aware of the abortion and her mother was supportive of the procedure, though the mother had “previously denied G’s requested access to contraceptives” and was initially “unsupportive of her daughter, texting her to the effect that she had shamed the family” when she found out about the pregnancy.
In rare cases, the courts must become involved in deciding whether a child can have an abortion. (ABC News: Pete Mullins)
She said the baby’s father was a 16-year-old boy who was not aware of the pregnancy because he and the girl and were not presently in contact.
“G’s views on continuing the pregnancy have included that she did not wish to be out in public pregnant at a young age attracting attention, that she was preoccupied with the idea of the pain of childbirth and that she cannot even look after herself,” Justice Hindman said.
“G is a child in the custody of the State. She lives in residential care and has done so since October 2024. She, sadly, has a child protection history record going back to 2012, which is the year of her birth.”
MSI Australia estimates around 2 per cent of abortions they provide are for people younger than 18. (ABC News: Pete Mullins)
G gave unsworn evidence to the court and Justice Hindman said she presented as “mature”.
Ultimately, Justice Hindman found the girl was not Gillick competent for the purpose of consenting to the abortion and “the termination of [her] pregnancy by surgical operation is in [G’s] best interests and is necessary having regard to her current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances”.
She ordered the health service was able to undertake the procedure on or before August 7 this year.
This case follows similar rulings published in July and August involving girls aged 11 and 12, where the court also determined the children could not lawfully consent to the procedure themselves.