GJB v MVY [2025] SACAT 54

The respondent mother of the child said that the change of name was necessary to enable the child's participation in society in accordance with their gender identity. She said that the child's mental health would be adversely affected if a change of name was not approved, and the child gave evidence in the internal review hearing in support of this.

• The Tribunal now has objective medical evidence that the child meets the medical criteria for gender dysphoria and which supports a view that it is in the best interests of the child for their first name to be changed;
• If the Tribunal does not change the child's first name, then the child's name will continue to be a barrier to the child for their education, work and general participation in society;
• The child's first and second names were female and so if the child's first name is to be changed, it is a logical consequence of that change, to delete the child's second name;
• The Tribunal does not consider that the proposed change of the child's surname is likely to have a material impact on their relationship with the applicant;
• The Tribunal considers that it is in the child's best interests for their name to be changed and therefore, considers that the original Order is the correct or preferable decision.

Internal review - Births, deaths and marriages - Application to change a child's name - Best interests of the child - Child consents to the change of name

Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 ss 25, 26

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70

ZXN v TZW [2018] SACAT 52

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. This is an application seeking the review of an order made by the Tribunal on 26 March 2025 in matter number 2024/SA003637 (the original Order).
2. In the original Order the Tribunal dealt with an application by the respondent (MVY, who is the mother of the child) seeking an order under section 25(2)(c) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 (the BDMR Act) to change the name of the child from female first and second names and the father's surname to a male first name and the mother's surname. The Tribunal made an order to change the child's name to a male first name and the mother's surname.
3. GJB is the applicant and father of the child. He disagrees with the original Order, and he has sought a review. An application for review is made under section 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act).

1. Both parties have provided the Tribunal with written submissions in this matter. At the direction of the Tribunal, the respondent has also provided a report from Dr Georgie Swift, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 13 June 2025.
2. At the suggestion of the Tribunal, the respondent has provided a written statement from the child.
3. Section 70(4) SACAT Act allows the Tribunal to take into account additional evidence in the course of the review if the Tribunal considers it is relevant and appropriate to do so. I decided that those documents would be helpful to me in making my determination about this matter, and so I did accept them into evidence.
4. The Tribunal attempted to provide those documents to the applicant before the hearing. Unfortunately, he did not realise he had received emails from the Tribunal with those documents, and he was unable to open those documents. The Tribunal resent documents to the applicant. I also read those documents out in the hearing. I offered to adjourn the matter for a few days to allow the applicant an opportunity to further consider the information in those documents, and to provide a response, but he said that he did not consider that was necessary, and he did address the contents of both documents in his oral submissions in the review hearing.

The participation of the child in these proceedings

1. The child chose to participate in the review hearing. In addition to their written statement, the child made some oral submissions in the course of the review hearing.

1. The child is 15 years old. The child was born in Singapore, and the name registered on the birth certificate is a female first and second name and the father's surname.
2. GJB and MVY are named on the child's birth certificate, as the child's parents.
3. They separated shortly after the birth of the child.
4. The respondent and the child lived in Singapore for a while, and then they returned to Australia, and they now live in Adelaide.
5. The child has always lived with the respondent. The child had some contact with the applicant, but that ceased in 2019. Since then neither the applicant nor his family have had any contact with the child.
6. The child told the respondent that they were transgender in 2023. The respondent and the child have been seeking medical assistance from the child's GP and they have had two appointments with the Women and Children's Hospital (WCH) Gender Diversity Clinic.
7. Due to their situation of gender dysphoria, the child is not attending school, studying or participating in any form of education through Open Access and the child is not in the paid workforce.[1]
8. The respondent made an application to change the child's name and the Tribunal made an order which permitted that to occur, and that decision is contained in the original Order of which the applicant has sought a review.

1. Section 70 SACAT Act provides that on internal review, the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision taking into account the evidence available to the Tribunal in the original hearing, giving appropriate weight to the original Order, and taking into account any other evidence the Tribunal considers is relevant and appropriate to take into account in the course of the review. Any application for review necessarily involves an application for leave.
2. Section 25(2)(c) BDMR Act provides that an application for registration of a change of a child's name may be made by one parent if the Tribunal approves the change of name.
3. Section 25(3) BDMR Act states that the Tribunal may, on application by a child's parent, approve a proposed change of name for the child if satisfied that the change is in the child's best interests.
4. Section 26 BDMR Act states that a child's name must not be registered unless either the child consents to the change of name or the child is unable to understand the meaning and implications of the change of name.

1. In summary, the applicant submitted that:
   • He disagrees with the approach of the child and the respondent concerning the child's gender dysphoria because he considers that the child is too young to make a properly informed decision about the issue and the ramifications of such a decision are unlikely to be fully appreciated by the child at this age.
   • Therefore, he also disagrees with the decision to change the name of the child which is consequential to the choices being made about the child's gender dysphoria.
   • He does not consider the report provided by Dr Swift is adequate evidence to support the respondent's and the child's views about gender dysphoria, and their decisions which flow from that because Dr Swift only saw the child once and that is not enough for a proper assessment to be made about the child's gender dysphoria.
   • In addition, he considers that the child should be undergoing a course of counselling before any decisions about the child's gender dysphoria are made.
   • His position in relation to child support has been misunderstood.
   • Because of the child's young age, any decision arising in any way from the child's gender dysphoria (including a decision about the child's name) should be postponed until the child is 18 years of age.
   • He also opposes the application to change the child's surname - he ceased having contact with the child in 2019 because the child's grandmother made it impossible for him to interact with the child alone, however, he has made a significant contribution to the child in the child's younger years, and he still cares about the child.
2. In summary, the respondent submitted that:
   • After the child informed her that they were transgender, she has been trying to seek medical assistance, but it is difficult due to the child's age, and a shortage of clinicians with expertise in the area.
   • However, they have seen the child's GP and they have had two appointments at the WCH gender diversity clinic.
   • Her view is that the child needs a male name to be consistent with their male identity, and to enable them to participate in essential life activities such as school or work.
   • There is no interim practical solution which would address the issue for the next two years until the child turns 18.
   • The applicant is trying to use tactics of coercive control and intimidation to prevent the child's name being changed.
   • She is concerned that the mental health of the child will be significantly adversely impacted if the child's name is not changed.
3. The child asked to make submissions in the course of the internal review hearing, and I permitted the child to do so. The child provided their own written submission.
4. In relation to the change of their first and second names, the child said:

"I desperately require a name change to live my life as my true self, to go to school or find employment without being distressed. With no name change, I will be behind on education and employment, receive no ATAR nor head-start to capitalise off advantageous employment opportunities from being a junior due to sheer distress."

5. In relation to the change of their surname, the child said that they have always lived with their mother; their mother has been the person who has provided comfort during their times of distress; their mother is the person who is teaching them life skills; it has been years since they have had any contact with their father and they do not wish to have any contact with their father. They consider that the response of their father to their current situation is unreasonable, unsympathetic, and does not place their best interests first.

The further evidence available to the Tribunal on review

1. Notwithstanding the fact that Dr Swift has only had one interview with the child, I found her report to be very helpful. That report states that:

a) The child meets the criteria for a gender diversity of adolescence - which requires that a child meets at least two of the criteria, and they must have been present for six months. The criteria are: > > * A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics). > * A strong desire to be rid of one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one's experienced/ expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated sex characteristics). > * A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender. > * A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender). > * A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender). > > b) In order to meet the criteria, the condition must be associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning and this is the case for the child. > > c) The child experiences dysphoria in relation to various female aspects of their body and has spoken about the changes in their body which would occur with testosterone therapy.

In conclusion, Dr Swift states that she fully supports the application for the child to change their first name to a male name which reflects their gender identity and expression because it would support the child to return to school and to participate more generally in society.

1. In the original Order, Senior Member Rainford has referred to the legal principles to be applied in a matter such as this, and he has concluded that the child's names should be changed from their current names, to a male first name and the mother's surname.
2. I repeat the factors referred to in ZXN v TZW,[2] by her Honour President Hughes when dealing with an application to change the name of a child:
   • The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration;
   • The short and long term effects of any change of the child's surname;
   • Any embarrassment likely to be experienced by the child if their name is different from that of the parent with custody or care and control;
   • Any confusion of identity which may arise for the child if their name is changed or is not changed;
   • The effect which any change in surname may have on the relationship between the child and the parent whose name the child bore during a marriage or relationship;
   • The effect of frequent or random changes of name;
   • The advantages both in the short term and in the long term which will accrue to the children if their name remains as it is now;
   • The contact that the non-custodial parent has had and is likely to have in the future with the child;
   • The degree of identification that the children now have with each parent, and where relevant, with any step-parent.
3. I have formed the following conclusions about those factors on the basis of the evidence and submissions in this matter:

a) The Tribunal now has objective medical evidence that the child meets the medical criteria for gender dysphoria and which supports a view that it is in the best interests of the child for their first name to be changed. That evidence also establishes that this situation is not new for the child, and the child has had detailed discussions about their gender dysphoria with Dr Swift and also about the impact of hormone treatment with Dr Swift. > > b) If the Tribunal does not change the child's first name, then the child's name will continue to be a barrier to the child for their education, work and general participation in society. The child will be isolated and will be unable to take up opportunities which would otherwise be available to them. > > c) I accept that there is no practical interim solution which could be in place and which would allow the child to participate in formal activities such as education, in a manner which is consistent with their gender identity. > > d) If the Tribunal does change the child's first name, it is likely that the child will be able to resume participating in society in a meaningful way - pursuing their education, and getting work at some point. > > e) If the Tribunal does not change the child's first name, then the child will continue to be distressed by their situation and this is likely to have a significant adverse effect on their mental health. > > f) If the child's first name is to be changed, it is logical to remove the child's second name (which is also female). > > g) In relation to the issue of the change of the child's surname, it is not disputed that the applicant now lives in New South Wales, and has not had any contact with the child since 2019. It is also not disputed that the child has always lived with their mother, and the child has a close relationship with their mother. > > h) In the circumstances of this matter my assessment is that although the applicant has said that he still cares for the child, they do not communicate, they have not communicated for about five years, and neither of them is trying to change that situation. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proposed change of the child's surname is likely to have a material impact on their relationship.

4. For all of the above reasons, I consider that it is in the child's best interests for their name to be changed from a female first and second name and the applicant's surname to a male first name and the respondent's surname and therefore, I consider that Senior Member Rainford's decision in the original Order, is the correct or preferable decision. Accordingly, I will affirm the original Order.

1. The Tribunal grants leave for the application to proceed.
2. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Pages 9-10 of the transcript of the original hearing.

[2] [2018] SACAT 52.