🔗 Share this article

The state government disclosed confidential information about the parent of a trans teenager – data she says potentially exposed her teen – to a unknown individual.

Accusations of “Bullying” and “Privacy Violation”

The disclosure came as the state government was accused of “intimidation” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting private health records from guardians of transgender children who are contemplating a further legal challenge to its disputed ban on puberty blockers.

Recent Government Order on Hormone Treatments

Last month, the Queensland health official, Tim Nicholls, enacted a fresh directive banning the use of hormone blockers for trans individuals, shortly after the state’s supreme court determined the government’s first attempt was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has interviewed several parents who have approached Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the authorities made a decision to ban puberty blockers in the state. Legally, the paper must be supplied under the legal statute.

Requested Health Information

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for details of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any supporting documents which supports your child having a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria”.

The details were sought before the statement of reasons would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the media, also asked them to “please also confirm if your teen is a patient of the Queensland Children’s Gender Clinic so that we can verify the information provided with the health service,” reads the email, which was dispatched last Friday.

Mothers Label Demand as Breach of Confidentiality

All four mothers described the demand as an invasion of privacy.

A mother said she was reluctant to divulge the information because the state government had mistakenly forwarded her data to a another individual.

“It feels like having to reveal your child to obtain a reply; like, it’s frightening,” she said.

Situation of the Mother

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also identify or “out” her child, was among those who requested a explanation on multiple occasions.

In May, the department sent a reply meant for her to another parent, revealing her identity and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a government employee later apologised over the phone; the Guardian has obtained an email from the department admitting the mistake.

She said she felt “sick and unsafe” as a consequence of the error.

“My daughter is very reserved. She is immensely fearful of being exposed in any public space. She doesn’t like people to know that she’s trans,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as possible. The only time I ever share is out of necessity for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to people I consider incredibly safe and I trust completely.”

Louise was particularly concerned about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the medical facility.

She said the demand was “intimidating” and “seems coercive”.

Additional Parent Expresses Worries

Sally* said she was unwilling disclosing the medical history of her seven-year-old non-binary child.

“It’s not my information, it’s a child’s information,” she said.

“To think that that data could inadvertently be disclosed someday, in any manner, you know, even if that was accidental, could be extremely upsetting to him.”

She responded saying the agency had requested an “excessive level of detail”.

“I wouldn’t provide that information to another entity that requested it, particularly in the climate of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential information. You wouldn’t disclose, for example, your HIV status to the minister’s office, you know. You’d be hesitant and very cautious to provide any of that information to a group of officials, basically.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The LGBTI Legal Service, which represented the parent in her case, was evaluating a second lawsuit, it said recently.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had affected about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the provision of reasons so that children and their guardians can comprehend the reasoning behind this ruling, which has had such a severe effect on their access to healthcare”.

Government Position on Prohibition

The authorities has repeatedly said the ban would stay enforced until a examination into trans healthcare had been completed.