Family First is calling for an immediate, independent investigation into the conduct of the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) in recent Victorian court proceedings, following explosive claims that the hospital withheld critical information and failed to meet its obligations as a “model litigant”.
Victorian Upper House candidate Jane Foreman said the latest revelations — including accusations of “forum shopping” and the omission of major international evidence such as the Cass Review — raise profound questions about whether the court was fully and accurately informed before authorising irreversible medical interventions on vulnerable children.
“This is not a minor paperwork issue — this goes to whether the Royal Children’s Hospital has misled the courts by omission,” Ms Foreman said.
“Justice Andrew Strum has effectively accused the hospital of choosing a court where no Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed and no contradictor was present. He also noted with concern that the RCH failed to tell the Supreme Court about the Cass Review, despite its international significance and its devastating critique of the very treatment model RCH continues to promote.”
Former Family Court judge Stuart Lindsay, speaking to The Australian said the hospital’s conduct was “astonishing” and a potential departure from its legal duties as a model litigant.
Ms Foreman said the concerns raised this week echo earlier issues revealed by Family First.
“In August 2024, Family First exposed that the RCH had been referring young girls — some as young as 13 — for breast removal surgery when they expressed confusion about their gender,” she said.
“That revelation, if reported by the media instead of being suppressed, would shock parents across Victoria. Now we learn that, on top of this, the hospital may have withheld key evidence from the courts — evidence showing that puberty blockers are experimental, associated with serious risks, and now restricted or abandoned in the UK, Scandinavia and New Zealand.”
Ms Foreman said the Victorian Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss a formal complaint from a former senior federal government lawyer — without addressing the key issues raised — only heightens the need for an inquiry.
“It is unacceptable that the Department brushed off concerns about omitted evidence, lack of contradictors, and the RCH’s decision to avoid the Family Court altogether,” she said.
“The Attorney-General must explain why these concerns were dismissed out-of-hand when senior judicial figures are saying the opposite.”
She said the RCH board’s recent AGM comments also raised alarm.
“When questioned by parents, the board chair refused to engage with the hospital’s poor evidence base, the Cass Review’s criticism, or the international retreat from puberty blockers,” Ms Foreman said.
“For one of the nation’s flagship children’s hospitals to be so dismissive of growing scientific concern — while continuing to facilitate irreversible medicalisation — is deeply troubling.”
Ms Foreman reaffirmed Family First’s call for a moratorium on medicalised gender treatments for minors until the NHMRC review is complete — and for a full investigation into the RCH’s conduct.
“The courts rely on complete and frank information. If a major public hospital has failed in that duty, the public has a right to know,” she said.
“Children deserve protection, not ideology. Parents deserve transparency, not secrecy. And the courts deserve evidence — not selective omissions.”
Contact details:
