Gillick is more than a gimmick: the urgent need for a consistent approach to children’s autonomy

Cason Yong, Coram Chambers

Do family courts adopt a consistent approach to children’s autonomy? If not, should they? This article critically examines the inconsistency with which courts address children’s autonomy in decision-making, and highlights the shortcomings within the current legal framework. Although landmark cases such as Gillick v West Norfolk have established the recognition of children’s autonomy, the application of age, capacity, and welfare criteria as metrics of autonomy remains unclear and inconsistent, and this often leads to unpredictable judicial decisions. This article calls for a comprehensive re-evaluation of judicial practices to ensure that children’s autonomy is consistently respected and to empower them to meaningfully participate in decisions that affect their lives. By adopting a transparent and principled standard, the family justice system would (1) enhance the reliability of its decisions, (2) offer greater legal certainty for parents, children, and medical professionals, and (3) foster a more child-centered system of justice. 

The full article has published in the May issue of Family Law.  Find out more or request a free 1-week trial of Family Law journal. Please quote: 100482

Read the full article here.