The Sterilisation of Girls and Young Women in Australia: issues and progress

Chapter four - rules, guidelines and protocols

This chapter describes the formalised rules set out in practice notices, protocols and guidelines in both the Family Court and the Guardianship Tribunals of NSW and SA. It aims to ascertain the meaning ascribed to the rules or guidelines, the types of inquiries they appear to invite, and implications for experts and other stakeholders involved in these matters.

(a) family law rules

The Family Court is able to modify the strictly adversarial process by using its rule making power. It has done so in the exercise of its 'welfare' jurisdiction for children acknowledging that special medical cases like sterilisation involve different considerations from those relevant to the responsibility owed to litigants in child contact (access) and residence (custody) cases.

After the High Court decision in Marion the Family Court ratified Family Law Rules Order 23B [1] in relation to the approval of special medical matters for children. These rules follow on from Order 23A concerning the notification by the Family Court of child abuse allegations to state child protection agencies. They are not statutory rules but rather practice guidelines.

Order 23B contains a set of specific rules describing what is expected in affidavit materials filed by the applicant (usually the parent). These rules advise the applicant to provide affidavits and/or relevant reports by medical, psychological or other experts setting out:

the exact nature and purpose of the procedure;

the likely long term social and psychological effects of the procedure on the child;

that alternative and less invasive procedures would be or have proved to be inadequate;

why the procedure is necessary for the welfare of the child;

whether the child is unlikely to develop sufficiently to be able to make an informed judgement within the time in which the procedure should be carried out or within the foreseeable future, and

any other reasons for granting the procedure. (Family Law Rules 1992, Order 23 B, rule 5).

The rules make it clear that the burden of proof is with the applicant to prove that the proposed procedure is in the best interests of the child. They focus on the child's competence and capacity, and are intended to encourage objective examination of the development of the child. They refer to the child's future social and psychological wellbeing but do not spell out in any further detail what needs to be taken into account. They make no mention of the child's or the parents' expressed wishes, or the child's cultural heritage and identity, though these issues can be dealt with under 'any other reasons'.

A number of the Court's other practice rules have potential to shape its approach in these matters. Judges can:

dispense with compliance with procedural rules (Order 4 Family Law Rules),

call any person as a witness, appoint expert assessors (Order 30B Family Law Rules) and/or call experts to inquire into and report on any issue (Order 30A Family Law Rules),

allow relevant 'social facts' to be placed before the court including journal and research material. [2]

The Family Court also takes a liberal view of who can bring proceedings, [3] assigns only specially designated judges, and requires that written reasons are given for any decision to authorise a sterilisation or any other special medical procedure. [4] These rules demonstrate the court's flexibility and procedural responsiveness in these matters. [5] However, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) has pointed out that although the Family Court has flexibility to adopt procedural innovations, it rarely does. [6] The Court's approach to applications for sterilisation has been criticised because it has ".not halted the apparent loosening both by interpretation and by outcome of cases of the best interests test." [7] and because there has been a 'slippage' in the value accorded to children with disabilities since Marion. [8] There is a general view that legislative change encouraging a more child-centred focus has not done so nor occasioned a change in the culture of family law. [9]

In an early sterilisation decision Chief Justice Nicholson outlined a list of factors to be considered in determining whether sterilisation was in the best interests of the child concerned. [10] They were adapted from In re Grady, an early sterilisation case decided in the USA in relation to the proposed tubal ligation of a woman with intellectual disability. [11] The factors are:

the possibility that she can become pregnant;

the possibility that she will experience psychological damage if she becomes pregnant or gives birth and conversely the possibility that she will experience psychological damage if she is sterilised;

the likelihood of sexual activity or rape;

her ability or otherwise to understand reproduction or contraception

the feasibility and medical advisability of less drastic means of contraception;

the advisability of sterilisation at the time of the application rather than in the future;

her ability to care for a child; - any evidence of medical or scientific advances within the foreseeable future, and

a demonstration that the applicants seeking sterilisation are seeking it in good faith and in her best interests, and not for public convenience. [12]

These factors refer to fertility and focus on child-birth and capacity for mothering. The Grady case did not canvass issues relating to menstrual management or its social consequences for her family in terms of an extra personal care. The Full Bench of the Family Court in Lessli's case [13] referred to the Grady set of factors to assist it in deciding whether a hysterectomy was in the best interests of 16 year old Lessli, and most recently Grady has been cited In the matter of 'A.' [14] One reading of Grady and its subsequent application in Lessli's case is that it allows speculation in the decision to authorise sterilisation or otherwise. It uses terms like 'possibility', 'feasibility', and 'advisability'. On another reading it takes a social policy position suggesting that pregnancy and motherhood are unacceptable risks for girls and women with intellectual disabilities.

The Family Law Council recommended four circumstances in which sterilisation should never be authorised. These are:

Sterilisation for eugenic reasons;

Sterilisation purely for contraceptive purposes;

Sterilisation as a means of masking or avoiding the consequences of sexual abuse;

Sterilisation performed on young women prior to the onset of menstruation, based on predictions about future problems that might be encountered with menstruation. [15]

The Family Court has supported the introduction of broad discretionary guides but have rejected prescriptive criteria recommended by law reform agencies. [16] It adopted this position because in its view prescriptive responses might only compromise consideration of the particular circumstances of individual children. The Full Bench of the Family Court said in Lessli's case that:

"the key issue becomes whether a proposed treatment is a benefit or a burden having regard to that individual child's circumstances. It must not be forgotten that the "step of last resort" criterion must be satisfied for the child having regard to that child's needs or capacities." [17]

The judgment was not embraced by disability service sector or indeed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which appealed the Full Bench decision to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed on technical grounds.

(b) family law protocols and practice guidelines

The Chief Justice of the Family Court has commented, rightly, that the most enduring difference to children's quality of life and the protection of their rights is a service landscape providing accessible support services for them and their families. [18] He noted in another context that "authorisation may only be given as a matter of law if the Court is satisfied that the procedure is the step of last resort", and added that:

"To this end, the court has been developing case management protocols with key stakeholders .in essence, the protocols entail two components.

The first aspect of the protocols is diversionary by creating early processes for case conferencing that seek to ensure that resources which could avert the application are identified, proposed and marshaled; and

The second element of the protocols lays down for the timely progress of an application that cannot be met with diversionary responses, through to the point of determination by designated judges" [19]

Protocols and practice guides have been developed in Queensland [20] and Victoria. [21] They have been explained and promoted by plain english guide-books [22] which seek to assist families, doctors, allied health professionals, teachers and other service providers to think through whether sterilisation is in the child's best interests. The guides set out the standard approach (see Diagram 6.1 The Standard Approach) and provide a short introduction to the law, legal terminology and court process.

Diagram 6.1

the standard approach [23]

The Standard Approach. See link below for a summary of this image

Note: Flow chart shows details of the Standard approach to family law protocols and practice guidelines. If you require a more accessible version of this chart,
please email webfeedback@humanrights.gov.au

includes direct service departments (eg State Departments of Human Services and/or Disability Services) and/or Statutory Agencies like the Office of the Public Advocate in both Victoria and South Australia.

The Special Medical Procedure Protocols seek to ensure effective collaboration between the court and other key agencies in the best interests of the child. In Queensland they include the Legal Aid Office and the Department of Families Youth and Community Care and in Victoria, the Legal Aid Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate and the Department of Human Services. Similar arrangements are being negotiated in both NSW and South Australia. [24]

The Protocols serve three main purposes. The first is to secure support services for the child and family which will assist them with the care and management of their child, including specialised behaviour and menstrual management programmes and more generally respite care and other like services which will relieve the stresses which may have prompted contemplation of sterilisation in the first place. [25] The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (UNCROC) noted its concern:

"at reports that disabled children may be sterilised in situations where this could be avoided if there was sufficient support for the families of the children with disabilities." [26]

In theory, then, the protocols ensure that applications proceed to court only 'as a last resort' after applicants have had the opportunity to explore less invasive alternatives to sterilisation.

The second is to ensure, if applications can't be diverted and do proceed to court, that the court is provided, through the child representative, with comprehensive evidence about the less invasive alternatives to sterilisation, in particular expert reports which:

Establish whether all alternative and/or less invasive options have been addressed in the material filed with the Court

Identify alternative and/or less invasive options and provide advice on less restrictive alternatives to the proposed procedure that will promote the welfare and best interests of the child

Obtain reports by appropriate experts and any other relevant material. [27]

In theory, then, the protocols take on board criticisms about the court's penchant for accepting evidence of anticipated rather than real difficulties in sterilisation matters, [28] and for placing too much importance on the evidence of medical practitioners and too little on the contribution of non-medical professionals who may have more understanding of developmental options for people with disabilities. It is important to reiterate in this context the criticism of courts to the effect that:

"... judges will all too often accept or prefer the views of the medical profession to the exclusion of other relevant evidence and in some cases elevate opinions and assertions to the status of fact." [29]

The High Court in Marion made it clear that sterilisation is not merely a medical issue. It made the point that:

"to characterise intervention comprising sterilisation as "medical treatment" is already to make assumptions and to narrow the inquiry, perhaps inappropriately." [30]

The majority said:

"the requirement of court authorisation ensures a hearing from those experienced in different ways in the care of those with intellectual disabilities." [31]

The third is to 'neutralise' the impact of the adversarial nature of court proceedings on the applicants, almost always the child's parents. In an early sterilisation case [32] the presiding judge observed that the adversarial nature of proceedings generated a hostile atmosphere that was detrimental to the family.

The majority in Marion took the point further. They acknowledged that:

"it is too costly for most parents to fund court proceedings, that delay is likely to cause painful inconvenience, and that the strictly adversarial process of the court is very often unsuitable for arriving at this kind of decision. These are clear indications of the need for legislative reform, since a more appropriate process for decision making can only be introduced in that way." [33]

(c) the effectiveness of the protocols

The Family Court hasn't dealt with any applications for sterilisation (or any other special medical procedure) in Victoria since the protocols there were ratified, [34] and only one in Queensland, in 2000.[35] Clearly it is too early to assess their effectiveness.

There is good reason to believe, however, that many applications will be diverted if appropriate services are offered early in the piece, before partisan legal involvement. The experience in Queensland has been relatively positive. It has shown that where services are accessed by families, before lawyers are engaged or an application is made to the court, they will more often than not chose less invasive options:

"Between September 1994 and December 1997 ten out of eleven matters in Queensland were successfully diverted from court. The 'guidelines and protocols' have facilitated the identification and delivery of information and advice to the child's parents and referral for needs-based programs and support." [36]

That said the protocols will be only as good as the service landscape and availability of support services for the child and family, and only to the extent that families are prepared to consider alternatives and the Court is prepared to give genuine consideration to non-surgical alternatives. The spirit and success of the protocols rely on all these conditions being met.

The Protocols for special medical procedures like sterilisation are similar in spirit and intention to the child protection protocols between the Family Court and relevant State and Territory authorities. [37] Those protocols too are designed to encourage cooperation between key stakeholders, clarify procedures and promote best practice, and ensure the development and implementation of an individual case management program which meet the needs of children and their families. [38] However the Family Law Council has identified ongoing problems with the implementation of protocols regarding allegations of child abuse because the family law system is fractured and difficult to coordinate. [39] Recent research suggests that protocols between the child welfare authorities and the Family Court are infrequently and inconsistently applied if at all.[40]

The special medical procedures protocols face the added problem that applications are few and far between, and it is likely that the Court will experience difficulties in identifying an application as a special medical procedure and administratively responding to it in a timely and coordinated way. As noted by the recent research programme in Victoria [41] even in the child protection area where arguably more cases proceed to hearing there is a critical need for greater attention to be paid by court staff and legal representatives to the protocols. [42] Clearly improvements in communication and cooperation between key stakeholders is required. [43]

Some general observations about the operation of protocols include:

the critical point is the point of first contact. The chances of families giving meaningful consideration to non-surgical alternatives to sterilisation reduce significantly once applicants are legally represented and an application is filed with the court. Filing alters the dynamics between the various stakeholders, and tensions are more likely to be evident. Applicants readily become committed to 'winning' ; [44]

the attitude of the applicant's legal representatives is crucial to whether the protocols will work. Adversarial lawyers will promote the outcome wanted by their clients and are therefore unlikely to encourage them to engage with service providers in a cooperative exploration of potentially less invasive alternatives ; [45]

the adversarial nature of the court process and partisan legal representation make it almost inevitable that professionals who provide alternative assessments and opinions will be portrayed as 'spoilers', and by so doing discourage rather than promote collaboration and cooperation. [46]

the way the problem is constructed shapes what evidence is collected, from whom, how it is assessed, and the weight it is accorded in deciding how the child's best interests will be served.

(d) guardianship rules and guidelines

Both the NSW and SA Guardianship Tribunals are closely linked with the disability service systems in their respective States. The members of tribunals are chosen because they have specialised knowledge and experience with people with disabilities and their families. [47] Their specialised knowledge is part of the 'equipment' of the tribunal and places it in a position where it can independently assess evidence put before it from both a professional and/or personal perspective.

Both Tribunals provide applicants with detailed information sheets in plain english advising them of the requirements which must be met before applications for sterilisation can proceed, as well as the type of information the tribunal requires in order to make a decision. The information sheets provide details on a wide range of support services and options which the child and family may wish to access. In both States, once an application for sterilisation has been made, linkages with services are encouraged and in some cases alternative options are identified and implemented, and as a result the application is withdrawn. [48]

The NSW Guardianship Tribunal appoints an investigation and liaison officer (ILO) to case manage applications prior to hearing. The ILO is a member of tribunal staff and has the specific role of seeking the views of the person with a disability subject to application and all other relevant persons, and arranging medical and non-medical assessments, for example by psychologists, family planning educators, and others.

It has developed extensive questionnaires for reporters to assist them in providing the information it requires. The questionnaire for medical reporters seeks information on their history of contact with the child, whether alternative approaches of a less restrictive nature have been trialed, for how long, and why they are considered to be inadequate. Doctors are asked to consider "what other alternatives would usually be recommended to a non-disabled patient, of similar age, with these difficulties?" and whether they have liased with other service providers who are involved with the child and her family. The questionnaire ends by asking whether the proposed treatment meets the statutory criteria - is it "necessary to prevent serious damage to the patient's health" and does it "promote and maintain the health and wellbeing of the patient". The non-medical questionnaire is similar in its approach except it does not ask whether the proposed treatment meets the statutory criteria but asks instead whether it is "likely that the client could develop adequate understanding to be able to consent to the proposed procedure herself?"

The focus of each questionnaire is on establishing how well the reporter knows the child, whether he/she has engaged her in discussion about the proposed procedure, whether less restrictive approaches have been investigated, and whether the proposed surgery would be justified 'but for' the child's intellectual disability.

The ILO provides the tribunal with a detailed investigation report, materials and reports collected during the course of the investigation, but does not make a recommendation. The report is provided to the parties prior to the hearing. It is tested in the same way that other reports are tested, and has similar evidentiary status. [49] The child is separately represented, usually by a legal officer with the Disability Legal Rights Centre.

The practices and procedures in South Australia are broadly similar to those in NSW. The investigation reports, however, are provided by staff of the Office of Public Advocate (OPA), an independent statutory agency that advocates on behalf of persons with a disability. OPA attends the hearings and make recommendations. Investigation reports in both NSW and South Australia may contain hearsay material, [50] but there is a general policy not to include unsubstantiated material.

The proactive inquiring role of the ILO and OPA investigators suggests that their investigation reports are more comprehensive in their approach to the issues than the 'single viewpoints' presented, for example, by an individual medical practitioner or psychologist. [51] The OPA and ILOs develop content knowledge and are embedded in a culture which is imbued with disability services policy and principles which stress least restrictive alternatives to intervention. [52] The Guardianship Tribunals are inquisitorial in approach and do not rely only on the evidence and arguments put to them by the parties.

The Tribunal approach has strengths which makes it easier for both the young woman and her parents:

"The Guardianship Tribunal (of NSW) and other Tribunals in other states and territories of Australia are in a strong position to deal with applications for sterilisation. The NSW Guardianship Tribunal is well placed to determine these matters, in particular, because, we sit not only Presiding members but Professional and Community members identified as having experience and expertise in relation to these issues. This expertise informs the way that they seek and deal with the evidence. We handle applications for sterilisation in a way that is easier then the Family Court with its formal procedures and traditional court room atmosphere for the person, parents and other witnesses to provide their evidence" [53]

The Tribunal approach is referred to as a 'popular justice' [54] enabling an active participation and inclusion in the decision-making process.

1. First appeared in CCH Australia Ltd, 1993.

2.See Sarah's case: L and GM v MM (1994) FLC 92-449.

3. See In Re Michael (1994) FLC 92 471.

4. Case Management Guidelines(1996)Family Court of Australia .

5. See Sandor, D.(1999).Sterilisation and special medical procedures on children and young people - Blunt instrument? Bad medicine? In Freckelton, I. & Petersen, K. (Eds) Controversies in Health Law, The Federation Press, Sydney

6. ALRC & HREOC. (1997). Seen & heard : priority for children in the legal process, Report no:84 p 418. See also Freckelton, I., Reddy,P & Selby, H. (1999). Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence: an empiricial study. AIJA, Melbourne.

7. O'Neill, N. (1996). Sterilisation of Children with Intellectual Disabilities, Australian Journal of Human Rights 2 (2) p262

8. Jones, M. & Marks, LAB. (2000) Valuing People through Law - whatever happened to Marion? In (Eds.) M. Jones and LAB. Marks, Law in Context Special Issue: Explorations on Law and Disability in Australia, Sydney: The Federation Press pp 147-180.

9. Carmichael,J. & Sarre,R.(1994). Legal issues: the welfare of and responsibility for children under the law in Australia, In (Ed.) F Briggs, Children and families: Australian perspectives. Sydney: Allen and Unwin pp 102- 125; and see empirical study by Rhoades, H., Graycar, R. & Harrison, M. (1999). The Family Law Reform Act 1995: Can Changing Legislation Change Legal Culture, Legal Practice and Community Expectations? Interim Report, Family Court of Australia.

10. In re Jane (1989) FLC 92-007.

11. In re Grady (74) (1981) NJ 426 A 2d 467.

12. ibid

13. PvP (no 2 ) (1994-1995) 19 Fam LR, 1

14. In the matter of A. Unreported, Jerrard, J. 5th June 2000

15. Family Law Council. (1994). Sterilisation and Other Medical Procedures on Children : A Report to the Attorney-General, November. See Recommendation 3, p v

16. ibid and Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.(1994). Report on consent to sterilisation of minors. Report no. 77, Perth, WA.

17. PvP (no 2 ) (1994-1995) 19 Fam LR, 1.

18. Nicholson, A. (1993). The medical treatment of minors and intellectually disabled persons: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 23, First World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights - Congress Papers, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, Sydney.

19. Nicholson, A. (1999). "Court management of cases involving child abuse allegations" a Key-note address to the 7th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Perth, October. P 15

20. Brady, SM & Cooper, D.(1996) A Question of Right Treatment - the Family Court & special medical procedures for children: an introductory guide" , Family Court of Australia.

21. Family Court of Australia. (1998). A Question of Right Treatment - the Family Court & special medical procedures for children: an introductory guide," Family Court of Australia Southern Region .

22. Refer footnote 20-21

23. Based on Brady, SM. & Cooper, D. (1996). "A Question of Right Treatment: an introductory guide to special medical procedures in the Family Court" Family Court Publications Unit

24. In NSW the Family Court had convened a working group including the Department of Community Services (NSW), a non-government advocacy agency People with Disability (NSW), HREOC, and the Legal Aid Commission (NSW) to develop protocols and guidelines for special medical procedures like sterilisation. In South Australia an Interagency Focus Group is working on finalising inter-agency protocols and adapting the original introductory guide to reflect the South Australian situation. The Intellectually Disabled Services Council made the comment that: "the collaboration has led to an increased knowledge of the issues by all agencies and a commitment to provide quality services to children and women with intellectual disability. IDSC is committed to continuing to work collaboratively with key stakeholders." Written communication from the IDSC, 21 February, 2001.

25. Nicholson, A. (1993). The medical treatment of minors and intellectually disabled persons: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 23, First World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights - Congress Papers, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, Sydney; Brady, S.(1995). The Rights of the Child to be Heard : The Extended Jurisdiction - Potential Hearing Impairments in the Legal Process 29th Australian Legal Convention, Law Council of Australia, Brisbane pp101-117; Brady, S. (1998). The Sterilisation Of Children with Intellectual Disabilities - Defective Law, Unlawful Activity and the Need for a Service Oriented Approach, Australian Journal of Social Issues 33 (2) pp 155-177

26. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. (1998). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child : Executive Summary, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia , Canberra. p. 46

27. Family Court of Australia. (1998). A Question of Right Treatment - the Family Court & special medical procedures for children: an introductory guide," Family Court of Australia Southern Region at p 54.

28. Family Law Council. (1994) Recommendation 3 p v; and see Carlson, G & Wilson, J. (1996). Menstrual management and Women who have Intellectual Disabilities: Service Providers and Decision-Making, Journal Intellectual Developmental Disability 21, pp 39-57.

29. Blackwood, J. (1991). Sterilisation of the intellectually disabled: The need for legislative reform. Australian Law Journal of Family Law, 5, 138-170 at page 151.

30. Marion at p 253

31. Marion at p 259.

32. See Cook. J., in Re a Teenager (1989) FLC 92-006. Refer to Chapter Five for further discussion.

33. Marion, at p 253

34. Written communication from the Office of the Public Advocate dated 2nd March 2001.

35. In the matter of A, Unreported, Jerrard, J. 5th June 2000.

36. Brady, S. (1998). The Sterilisation Of Children with Intellectual Disabilities - Defective Law, Unlawful Activity and the Need for a Service Oriented Approach, Australian Journal of Social Issues 33 (2) pp 155-177 at p 170.

37. Family Law Council (1998) Principles and Minimum Standards, Discussion Paper No 1, The Care Support & Protection of Children: Interaction between the Family Law Act and State and Territory Child & Family Services Legislation, Canberra.

38. ibid and see for an example the Protocol between Department of Human Services and the Family Court of Australia (1996) (Vic)

39. ibid

40. ibid and see Fehlberg, B & Kelly, F.(2000) Jurisdictional overlaps between the family division of the Children's Court of Victoria and the Family Court of Australia, Australian Journal of Family Law (forthcoming) cited in FLC (2000) The best interests of the child" The interaction of the Public and Private Law in Australia. Canberra p34

41. ibid

42. ibid. See particularly p 46

43. One case has used the protocols. A description of what happened in that case is not provided however all the problems identified on page 44 occurred. The service provider of disability services in the case did an outstanding job in terms of funding and service provision for the child and family.

44. For a discussion of the issues relating to adversarial court based systems and children's matters see generally, ALRC.(1997). Review of the adversarial system of litigation: rethinking the federal litigation system (ALRC IP 20), Sydney, and ALRC. (1997). Review of the adversarial system of litigation: rethinking family law proceedings (ALRC IP 22) Sydney, and ALRC.(1999). Review of the federal civil litigation system (ALRC DP 62) Sydney.

45. ibid and see also footnotes 6, 37 and 40

46. ibid. This observation is fully consistent with the findings of Law Reform Commissions and other applied research in the area of adversarial process and procedure.

47. See discussion in Chapter One

48. Written communication from NSW Guardianship Tribunal dated 9th February 2001. Refer also to Chapter 3 results.

49. Tait and Carney in an early evaluation of the NSW and Victorian Guardianship Tribunals queried whether there was undue reliance upon 'investigation' reports and found that there was not. See Tait, D., Carney, T., & Deane, K. (1994). Legal regulation of sterilisation: the role of guardianship tribunals in NSW and Victoria, Australian Journal of Family Law 8 (2) pp 141-165.

50. Family reports are equivalents used in the Family Court. They are provided by in-house counsellors or nominated agencies and also contain hearsay material.

51. ibid. See also Carney, T & Tait, D. (1997). The Adult Guardianship Experiment : tribunals and popular justice, Sydney: The Federation Press and Carney, T.(2000). "Protection, Populism and Citzenship" Law in Context : Special Issue 17 (2) in Jones,M & Basser Marks, LA (Eds) Explorations on Law and Disability in Australia, The Federation Press, Sydney

52. Refer to discussion of the guardianship model in Chapter One

53. Written communication from the NSW Guardianship Tribunal dated 9th February 2001.

54. See for a full discussion Carney, T & Tait, D. (1997). The Adult Guardianship Experiment : tribunals and popular justice, Sydney: The Federation Press and See Carney, T.(2000). "Protection, Populism and Citzenship" Law in Context : Special Issue 17 (2) in Jones,M & Basser Marks, LA (Eds) Explorations on Law and Disability in Australia, The Federation Press, Sydney

Site navigation

navigation Disability Rights

The Sterilisation of Girls and Young Women in Australia: issues and progress