Re Ryder [2020] NSWSC 895

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Re Ryder [2020] NSWSC 895 Hearing dates: 3 & 10 July 2020 Date of orders: 10 July 2020 Decision date: 10 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Equity - Protective List Before: Kunc J Decision: Medical treatment authorised Catchwords: CHILD WELFARE – Jurisdiction – Supreme Court of New South Wales – Parens patriae – Permitting chemotherapy for child where parents decline to consent Cases Cited: X v The Sydney Children's Hospital Network [2013] NSWCA 320; (2013) 85 NSWLR 294 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Hospital (First Plaintiff) Minister for Health (Second Plaintiff)

Ryder (First Defendant) The Mother (Second Defendant) The Father (Third Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

M Anderson (Plaintiffs) The Mother and the Father (in person)

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiffs) File Number(s): 2020/197336 Publication restriction: No

ex tempore judgment (revised)

Summary 1. Ryder (a pseudonym), the first defendant, is a two years and eight month old boy who has already endured much in his short life. However, unlike many of the children who come to the Court's attention, he has the unwavering love and support of his parents, the second and third defendants (the "Parents"). He has also had the benefit of highly skilled medical care. 2. Nevertheless, for reasons which the Court respects, Ryder's parents do not wish to consent to the next step in his treatment - six cycles of chemotherapy (the "proposed treatment") - which are unanimously recommended by his treating doctor (the "Doctor"), supported by collegial consultation among other specialists in the field including from overseas, and by a formal second opinion. 3. The plaintiffs - the Minister for Health and the treating hospital network (the "Hospital") - have urgently invoked the parens patriae jurisdiction of this Court for orders which will permit the proposed treatment to be administered over the Parents' objection. For the reasons which follow, the Court will make those orders. In short, the Court is satisfied that it is in Ryder's best interests that he undergo a course of chemotherapy now, with its attendant discomfort and side effects but very good prospects of success, to avoid a significant prospect of contracting cancer and having to undergo far more toxic chemotherapy later with far lower prospects of a successful outcome. 4. Mr M Anderson of Counsel appeared for the plaintiffs. The Parents appeared for themselves and had support available from Mr D Kennard of the Legal Aid Early Intervention Unit.