JC [2026] WASAT 13 (Link to eCourts portal).
With thanks to Phil Gleeson for drawing attention to this matter, which may be the first dealing with sterilisation of a male.
JC is 23 years old. JC has a rare genetic condition which has resulted in him living with an intellectual disability, and problems with gross and fine motor skills, among other things. HIs parents / guardians applied pursuant to s 59(1) of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) for an order that the Tribunal consent to the carrying out of a procedure for JC’s sterilisation, namely a vasectomy.
The reason given by the doctor, psychologist and Investigator was essentially that he is entitled to a sexual life, is of an age where he might embark upon sexual relationships, cannot avail himself of any other form of contraception, cannot understand the responsibilities of fatherhood and is likely to be negatively affected by becoming a father. ([82]).
Despite the views of JC’s parents that a vasectomy is in JC’s best interests, a view supported by other persons involved in the proceeding, the Tribunal decided not to give consent to the sterilisation of JC at this time.
The Tribunal said at [25]:
The Tribunal is not concerned to determine what is in the best interests of any child that might be born to JC or to the interests of JC’s family members who may be called upon to care for the child. The only way in which the interests of others who may have to deal with the consequences of JC fathering a child would be a relevant consideration would be if their interests impact upon the interests of JC himself.
The decision appears to have been based mainly on risk. The Tribunal said “the answer to this application really lies in the assessment of whether there is currently, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, any realistic possibility that JC will engage in sexual relations that might result in the conception of a child that needs to be guarded against by the performing of a vasectomy at this time. If such a risk existed, we would accept that it would be in JC’s best interest to have a vasectomy. However, in the absence of that prospect, in our view it could not be said to be in his best interests to undergo a vasectomy for the proposes of preventing a pregnancy”. ([86] – [87]).
The Tribunal formed the view that there is no current prospect that JC will engage in a consensual relationship of a sexual nature with a woman in the foreseeable future ([89]).
Accordingly the Tribunal did not consent to the sterilisation.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2498]