Overview

When parents agree about a child's gender distress, the law rarely gets involved. When they disagree, a family court judge may end up deciding whether a child changes name at school, starts puberty blockers, or lives mainly with one parent rather than the other. Since about 2016, a handful of these private disputes have become public test cases in the United States, Canada, Australia and England. Lawmakers have also begun writing gender into custody, child-protection and school laws, in opposite directions in different places.

This page is a factual overview, not legal advice. Laws differ by country and state and change quickly. Anyone involved in a dispute should speak to a family lawyer where they live.

Key terms

• Gillick competence: the test from the 1985 English case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. A child under 16 can consent to medical treatment without a parent if they have enough understanding and intelligence to grasp what is proposed. Australia, Canada and New Zealand use versions of the same idea, sometimes called the mature minor rule.
• Best interests: the main test family courts use for decisions about children. The judge asks what is best for this child, not what either parent wants.
• Parental responsibility (UK, Australia) or conservatorship (Texas): the legal power to make major decisions for a child, such as medical treatment and schooling. It can be shared or given to one parent.
• Stage 1 and Stage 2 treatment: terms used by Australian courts. Stage 1 is puberty blockers, drugs that pause puberty. Stage 2 is cross-sex hormones (testosterone or oestrogen), which cause partly permanent changes. See puberty blockers.
• Independent Children's Lawyer or guardian: a lawyer or officer appointed to represent the child's interests separately from either parent.
• Refuge or shield laws: US state laws, passed since 2022, that limit cooperation with other states' restrictions on youth gender medicine. Some include custody provisions.

Why these disputes arise

Disputes between parents over a child's gender identity tend to share some features. Often the parents have already separated, so the question of gender becomes part of a wider fight about custody and contact. One parent believes the child is transgender and that affirming them protects their mental health. The other believes the child is going through a phase, or is gender non-conforming, gay, autistic or troubled, and that affirmation will lock in a mistaken path. Both usually say they are acting to protect the child.

Courts are poorly placed to settle the underlying medical question. The evidence for youth medical transition is weak by the standards of systematic reviews (Cass 2024; Miroshnychenko et al. 2025), and professional bodies in different countries disagree sharply (Block 2023). A judge in a custody case must therefore choose between competing experts, or decide which parent should be trusted to choose. The clinicians' side of these questions is covered on clinics and clinicians.

For the child, the dispute can make things worse. A recurring theme in detransitioners' accounts is that the fight itself, more than either parent's view, shaped what they did (see accounts below).

Timeline of key cases and laws

Disputes between separated parents

United States: the Younger case

The best-known American case involved Jeff Younger and his former wife, a paediatrician, in Dallas, Texas. They shared custody of twin boys born in 2012. The mother said one twin identified as a girl and supported a social transition. The father said the boy presented as a boy when with him, opposed the transition, and ran a public campaign. The case is often called by the name of that campaign. This page does not name the child.

In October 2019 a Dallas jury voted 11–1 to give the mother sole managing conservatorship. Days later Judge Kim Cooks ordered joint conservatorship instead, with medical decisions for the twins to be made by both parents together (CBS Texas 2019). The case moved to a different judge. In 2021 that court gave the mother sole custody but kept a requirement that both parents consent before any puberty blockers, hormones or surgery (The Texan 2021, conservative outlet).

In 2022 the mother moved with the twins to California, which had just passed its refuge law, SB 107. The father asked the Texas Supreme Court to bring them back. On 30 December 2022 the court refused. Justice Blacklock, concurring, noted that an October 2021 order already said "neither parent may treat a child with hormonal suppression therapy, puberty blockers, and/or transgender reassingment [sic] surgery (if any) without the consent of the parents or court order". He wrote that the court "cannot intervene based on tenuous speculation about what other courts might do in the future at the request of a party who may never ask" (In re Younger 2022).

The case then moved to Los Angeles, where proceedings were sealed. In November 2024 the father said publicly that a judge had given the mother authority over the child's medical care. Newsweek reported his account but said it had not seen the ruling (Newsweek 2024). Because the record is sealed, what treatment, if any, has followed is not publicly known.

Canada: AB v CD

In British Columbia, a girl who identified as a boy (the courts used male pronouns) wanted puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and 14. The mother supported this. The father did not. Under section 17 of BC's Infants Act, a minor can consent to treatment if a health professional finds they understand it and that it is in their best interests.

In February 2019 Justice Bowden held that the teenager's consent was valid. He also declared that the father's attempts to talk the child out of treatment, and his use of the birth name and female pronouns, were "family violence". A second judge then made a protection order restricting what the father could say, including to the media (West Coast LEAF, intervener in the case).

On 10 January 2020 the BC Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the teenager's consent was valid. But it set aside the family-violence declaration and the protection order. It held that "as concerning as C.D.'s conduct was, however, it does not necessarily follow that such conduct equates to the kind of psychological or emotional abuse that would constitute 'family violence'" (National Post 2021). In their place it made narrower conduct orders: the father could not publish information about the child's gender identity, health or treatment, and had to use the chosen name and pronouns when speaking to the child. He remained free to share his views privately (CBC 2020; ARPA Canada, intervener). He later breached the publication orders and was jailed for contempt of court in 2021 (National Post 2021).

A critique on CanLII Connects, a legal commentary site, argued that the decision placed "excessive faith in the health care professionals treating the minor", because a minor can "search for a health care professional that will always agree" (CanLII Connects).

Australia: from Re Jamie to Re Devin

Australia's Family Court has decided more of these cases than any other court. Its approach has changed several times.

• Re Jamie (2013). The Full Court held that puberty blockers did not need court approval. For hormones, the court had to decide whether the child was Gillick-competent (Justice Connect).
• Re Kelvin (30 November 2017). Five judges unanimously departed from Re Jamie. Where the child, both parents and the doctors agree, hormones no longer need court approval (Justice Connect; Health Legal).
• Re Imogen (No 6) (10 September 2020). A 16-year-old boy who identified as a girl had been on blockers since 15 and wanted oestrogen. The father supported this. The mother disputed both the diagnosis and the child's competence, and wanted therapy instead. Justice Watts held that "if a parent or a medical practitioner of an adolescent disputes" competence, diagnosis or treatment, "an application to this Court is mandatory" (QLS Proctor 2020). He then found the teenager competent and authorised hormones.
• Re Ash (No 4) (2024). Justice Tree gave sole parental responsibility to the parent who supported testosterone for a 16-year-old girl who identified as a boy, and permitted the treatment. He found the risks "neither necessarily nor obviously unacceptable" (Nicholes Family Law).
• Re Devin (April 2025). A mother wanted her 11-year-old son to start blockers at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne. The father opposed. Justice Strum refused the treatment. He was not satisfied that the mother had proved the boy was "in fact, gender incongruent or gender dysphoric", nor that the benefits outweighed the risks (Maddens 2025, reproducing paras 131 and 187). He gave the father sole parental responsibility (Peleg 2025). The case and its treatment of the RCH's lead clinician are covered on Australia: Queensland pause, Spencer and Re Devin.

A Queensland government review noted that Re Devin and Re Ash "came to very different conclusions". It said the two cases show "how evidence may be differently presented and accepted/rejected" (Vine review 2025).

England: two cases called Re J

In Re J (A Minor) [2016], Mr Justice Hayden dealt with a seven-year-old boy who had been "living life entirely as a girl" with his separated mother, who was "absolutely convinced" he saw himself as a girl. The judge found she had caused her son "significant emotional harm" and moved him to his father's care, where he was doing well (Independent 2016). He criticised social services for being slow to act. The Transparency Project, a family-law charity, stressed that the court found the child was not transgender and was not being "forced" to live as a boy (Transparency Project).

In Re J (Transgender: Puberty Blocker and Hormone Replacement Therapy) [2024], a 16-year-old girl who identified as a boy, supported by the mother, had obtained a testosterone prescription from GenderGP, an offshore online clinic. In two months the young person spoke directly only with "an unregistered counsellor". A local NHS GP then gave the first injection. The father asked the court to require approval before any further treatment. The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, declined to issue wider guidance, saying the law should develop "case by case" and not "by judicial diktat". But he warned of "very significant concern" about a young person getting hormones "from any off-shore, online, unregulated private clinic". He urged other courts to "proceed with extreme caution" before approving GenderGP treatment (Re J 2024, paras 12, 53, 57–58). See GenderGP.

Gillick competence and consent

The Gillick case was about contraception, not gender. Lord Fraser held that there was no rule stopping a girl under 16 consenting to contraceptive treatment "provided that she had sufficient understanding and intelligence to know what they involve" (Article 39). Gender cases test this principle hard, because the treatments can affect fertility and sexual function, and a child is being asked to weigh losses they cannot yet imagine.

In Bell v Tavistock, brought by detransitioner Keira Bell, the High Court said in December 2020 that it was "highly unlikely" a child of 13 or under could consent to puberty blockers (Child Protection Resource). In September 2021 the Court of Appeal overturned that guidance, holding that "it was for clinicians rather than the court to decide on competence" (Bell v Tavistock 2021, para 87). Separately, in AB v CD [2021], Mrs Justice Lieven held that parents can consent to blockers for a child who is not competent to consent alone (Landmark Chambers 2021). The full litigation is on Keira Bell v Tavistock.

In practice, policy has overtaken these questions in the UK. After the Cass Review, puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in under-18s were banned indefinitely outside research from 11 December 2024 (BBC). NHS England paused new cross-sex hormone prescriptions for 16- and 17-year-olds in March 2026 (BBC). Disputes in England now tend to concern private and overseas prescribers, as in Re J (2024). See the United Kingdom.

State laws on custody and removal (United States)

Since 2022, American states have written gender into custody and child-protection law in two opposing directions. See the United States for the wider picture, including United States v. Skrmetti (June 2025), which upheld state bans on youth medical transition.

Refuge laws

• California SB 107 (signed 30 September 2022, in force 1 January 2023) bars California providers from releasing medical records in response to out-of-state actions against youth gender medicine. It also lets California courts take temporary emergency custody jurisdiction when a child is in the state to receive that care (Sacramento Bee 2022).
• Minnesota HF 146 (signed April 2023) amended the state's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the law that decides which state's court hears a custody case. Critics said it would let Minnesota take custody from parents who oppose transition. PolitiFact, a fact-checking site, said it changes jurisdiction in interstate custody cases but "doesn't remove custody from parents who object" (PolitiFact 2024).
• Washington SB 5599 (signed 9 May 2023). Licensed youth shelters must normally tell parents within 72 hours when a runaway minor arrives. Under this law, where a minor is seeking "protected health care services", including gender-related care, shelters may notify the state child welfare agency instead (PBS NewsHour 2023). Lower federal courts dismissed a parents' challenge because the parents could not show how the law had harmed them. On 29 June 2026 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson (No. 25-840), on whether parents have standing to sue (KIRO 7 2026; SCOTUSblog 2026).

California AB 957: the veto

AB 957 would have required California judges in custody cases to consider whether a parent affirms the child's gender identity when weighing the child's health, safety and welfare. Supporters said affirmation protects children. Opponents said it would penalise parents who believe sex cannot change. On 22 September 2023 Governor Newsom, who generally supports trans rights, vetoed it. He warned against legislating "in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic" and said existing law already required courts to consider a child's health, safety and welfare (New York Times 2023; Los Angeles Times 2023).

Texas and Florida

• Texas directive (2022). On 22 February 2022 Governor Abbott directed the state child welfare agency to investigate "abusive gender-transitioning procedures" for minors as child abuse (Office of the Texas Governor). On 13 May 2022 the Texas Supreme Court let investigations go ahead but held that the agency was not bound by the governor's directive (Texas Tribune 2022). Texas then banned puberty blockers, hormones and surgery for minors in 2023 (SB 14), and the Texas Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2024 (Houston Landing).
• Texas HB 1106 (2025). Signed on 20 June 2025 and in force from 1 September 2025. It amends the Family Code so that refusing to affirm a child's "self-perceived gender identity", including refusing to use a chosen name or pronouns, is not child abuse or neglect (Texas Policy Research, conservative; Texas Freedom Network 2025, LGBT advocacy). This is the reverse of the "family violence" finding in Canada's AB v CD trial ruling.
• Florida SB 254 (2023). Signed on 17 May 2023. As well as banning youth medical transition, it gives Florida courts "temporary emergency jurisdiction" over a child in the state who "has been subjected to or is threatened with being subjected to sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures" (Florida Senate). Critics said this would let a parent in Florida ask a Florida court to override another state's custody order (Snopes 2023). A federal judge struck down the medical restrictions in June 2024, but the Eleventh Circuit stayed that ruling in August 2024, so the law is in effect (GLAD Law, LGBT advocacy). We could not confirm a final appeal ruling as of October 2026.

California and Florida mirror each other: each claims emergency custody jurisdiction to protect a child from what the other state allows. A separated family living across both states could face orders that conflict.

Schools and parental notification

Many disputes start at school, when staff use a new name and pronouns for a pupil without telling one or both parents. In Mirabelli v. Bonta, on 2 March 2026, the US Supreme Court voted 6–3 to restore an injunction against California's policies as they applied to parents. It held that parents were likely to win on religious-freedom and due-process grounds (SCOTUSblog). This was an emergency order, not a final ruling. For separated parents, school policy can decide which parent finds out first. The lawsuits, England's 2026 guidance and the detransitioner view are covered in social transition at school.

How courts weigh expert evidence

Family courts usually hear from the child's treating clinicians, often one or more independent experts, and sometimes a child's lawyer or guardian. The cases above show three different approaches.

Deference to treating clinicians. In BC's AB v CD, the Infants Act puts the capacity and best-interests judgments in the hands of the treating health professional. The court asked mainly whether those steps had been followed. Bell v Tavistock (2021) took a similar line on competence.

Testing the clinicians against other experts. In Re Imogen, the mother was allowed to call an expert who had written that affirmative treatment can gloss over complex psychological difficulties (Thorne Harbour Health 2021, LGBT health advocacy). Commentators described the expert evidence as falling into roughly three camps (Child Protection Resource). The court still sided with the treating team. In Re Devin, by contrast, the judge reportedly found that the hospital's lead expert had let an advocacy role override her duty to the court. He also found she could not point to an empirical basis for the view that a child's gender identity is fixed (details and sources on the Australia page).

Scrutiny of the prescriber. In England's Re J (2024), a court-appointed expert's analysis of GenderGP's practice led the court to warn other judges against approving its treatment.

Legal scholars Michelle Taylor-Sands and Georgina Dimopoulos argue that Australian and UK courts have kept oversight of youth gender treatment by treating it as "innovative". In their view, this reflects "judicial discomfort" with gaps in medical consensus and long-term evidence, and they recommend clinical decision-making frameworks instead of court involvement (Taylor-Sands and Dimopoulos 2022). Critics of affirmative care draw the opposite conclusion from the same gaps. They argue that where long-term outcomes are unknown and loss to follow-up is high (Cohn 2023), a court hearing contested evidence is a needed check on a single clinic's view.

What decides these cases is often less the science than the question the court is asked. If the question is "is this child competent, and do the treating doctors recommend it?", treatment usually goes ahead. If the question is "has the parent seeking treatment proved the diagnosis, and that benefits outweigh risks?", as in Re Devin, the weak evidence base counts against treatment.

Accounts from detransitioners and parents

In our searches, few r/detrans posters described a formal custody battle over their own transition. More describe parents who split over it, and they look back on that split in different ways. These are individual, self-selected accounts, not a representative sample.

Some wish the doubting parent had prevailed:

I was 16 and I hate being angry about it but I’m so disappointed my dad let me take hormones. My mom was infuriated with him. —cosen_, detrans male

Hearing my mom tell me that she didn’t believe I was trans from day one, but then taking me from therapist to therapist until I got my testosterone referral then signing the paperwork really messed me up. —ali-pal, detrans female

Several describe parents giving consent under the threat of suicide:

I got testosterone at 14 and a mastectomy at 16 and I really wish that I had not been allowed to. My parents were fed the narrative that I'd kill myself if they didn't let me. —DEVlLlSH, detrans female

One of the things I will never forgive is my therapist telling my parents I was going to kill myself if they didn't completely affirm me. —AltCam1, detrans male

Others credit a parent's refusal to sign:

My guardians at the time refused to sign the papers and knew it was bad for my physical and mental health. —shewolf-, desisted female

But opposition did not always protect. Some say it pushed them further:

Definitely the resistance made it much worse. However I take full responsibility for my own actions, it's not their fault I'm stubborn and I didn't want to listen to them. —bababeboooom, detrans female

The parents' roles can also reverse after detransition:

I don’t know if this is ironic or not, but my dad was the one who was vehemently against my transition in the first place, and he turned out to be the biggest supporter of my detransition. My mom was very supportive of my transition, but not happy about my detransition. —sodacatcicada, detrans female

Parents posting in the subreddit describe the custody stakes directly. One mother wrote:

I just lost my rights to make medical, educational and psychological decisions for my children in court because I wanted to slow the “transition train” that my 12 yo ftm child is currently on. —DysturbingReality, parent

Most parents are terrified that they’ll lose their kids if they don’t accept it. They worry that the state will take them if they don’t acknowledge it…depending on where they live. —Justmakehimleave, socially transitioned, regrets entire transition

For parents now in this position, see parents' experiences and support and resources.

Trans perspectives

Trans-identified young people describe the same disputes from the other side, as an obstacle to treatment they want. Some note that parental disagreement made clinicians more cautious:

it also prevented me from starting hrt earlier as well, as the endo decided that i wasnt ready for it if me and my mom couldnt agree that it was the right choice. —VisualStar9047, ftm

Others see the family court as a route around an opposing parent:

Its possible if you have one (or none) of your parents supporting you can take it to the family court and they can consent in place of your parents. —Tigger_10, ftm

These comments reflect a real fear: that a parent's veto can delay treatment through years the young person experiences as urgent. Some of the detransitioners quoted above see that same delay as what protected them, or wish it had lasted longer.

What the cases show

The child becomes the battleground. In Re J (2016), Younger and AB v CD, gender was argued about inside a wider breakdown between the parents. The English court in Re J (2016) found that a mother's own convictions had shaped her son's identity. The BC Court of Appeal, on the other hand, warned against treating a parent's disagreement as abuse. Neither side's fear is imaginary. Both parents and courts can mistake conflict for evidence.

Who decides matters more than what is decided. The same teenager might be treated in Vancouver on a clinician's say-so, need a judge's approval in Melbourne if one parent objects, and be barred from treatment by statute in Texas. These differences reflect different answers to an old question in family law: how far a child's growing autonomy should displace parents and the state. Gillick answered it for contraception. Treatments that can affect fertility and sexual function for life test that answer much harder.

Laws are becoming adversarial between jurisdictions. Refuge laws and laws like Florida's each claim emergency jurisdiction to protect children from the other state's approach. For separated parents in different states, where the child is living may decide the outcome.

The evidence base sits underneath everything. While the medicine remains contested, outcomes will depend heavily on which experts a court hears and how it frames the question. That is how Re Ash and Re Devin, a year apart in the same court system, could reach opposite results.

Related pages

• Parents and families
• Clinics and clinicians
• When a child says they are trans
• Social transition at school
• Medical transition scandals
• Detransitioner lawsuits

References

• Cass, H. (2024). Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people: Final report. study page.
• Miroshnychenko, A. et al. (2025). Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. study page, source.
• Block, J. (2023). Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement. BMJ. study page, source.
• Cohn, J. (2023). The Detransition Rate Is Unknown. Archives of Sexual Behavior. study page, source.
• Taylor-Sands, M. and Dimopoulos, G. (2022). Judicial Discomfort over 'Innovative' Treatment for Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria. Medical Law Review 30(3). source.
• In re Jeff Younger, No. 22-1137 (Supreme Court of Texas, 30 December 2022), Blacklock J concurring. FindLaw.
• CBS Texas (2019). Dallas Judge Rules In Volatile Custody Case Involving 7-Year-Old's Gender Identity. source.
• The Texan (2021). Court Strips James Younger's Father of Custody But Says Permission Needed for Puberty Blockers (conservative outlet). source.
• Newsweek (2024). Elon Musk Attacks Reported Ruling on Preteen's Gender-Affirming Care. source.
• A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 254; A.B. v. C.D., 2020 BCCA 11 (10 January 2020). CanLII; summaries: West Coast LEAF (intervener), CBC 2020, National Post 2021, ARPA Canada (intervener).
• CanLII Connects. Critique of AB v CD, 2020 BCCA 11. source.
• Re Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258 and Re Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110. Summaries: Justice Connect, Health Legal.
• Re Imogen (No 6) [2020] FamCA 761 (10 September 2020). Summaries: QLS Proctor, Thorne Harbour Health (advocacy), Child Protection Resource.
• Re Ash (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 777. Summary: Nicholes Family Law.
• Re Devin [2025] FedCFamC1F 211. Paragraphs reproduced by Maddens 2025 (law blog). Commentary: Peleg 2025 (UNSW Australian Human Rights Institute). Judgment not directly accessed; see the Australia page for sourcing.
• Queensland Health (2025). Queensland Hormone Treatment Review (Vine review). source.
• Re J (A Minor) [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam). Independent 2016; Transparency Project.
• Re J (Transgender: Puberty Blocker and Hormone Replacement Therapy) [2024] EWHC 922 (Fam), 1 May 2024. judgment.
• Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112. Summary: Article 39.
• Bell v Tavistock [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 (17 September 2021). judgment; High Court ruling summarised by Child Protection Resource.
• AB v CD [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam). Summary: Landmark Chambers.
• BBC. Puberty blocker ban made indefinite (December 2024) source; NHS England pauses cross-sex hormones for 16–17s (March 2026) source.
• California SB 107 (2022). Sacramento Bee.
• California AB 957 veto (2023). New York Times; Los Angeles Times.
• Minnesota HF 146 (2023). PolitiFact 2024.
• Washington SB 5599 (2023). PBS NewsHour; International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, No. 25-840: KIRO 7, SCOTUSblog.
• Office of the Texas Governor (2022). Governor Abbott Directs DFPS To Investigate Gender-Transitioning Procedures As Child Abuse. source; Texas Tribune 2022.
• Texas SB 14 upheld. Houston Landing.
• Texas HB 1106 (2025). Texas Policy Research (conservative); Texas Freedom Network (advocacy).
• Florida SB 254 (2023). Florida Senate; Snopes 2023; Doe v. Ladapo status: GLAD Law (advocacy).
• Mirabelli v. Bonta, No. 25A810 (US Supreme Court, 2 March 2026). SCOTUSblog.