The late-term Queensland court-approved abortion for the then-12-year-old girl dubbed G, where the court granted approval for G to terminate her pregnancy. She made it very clear that she did not want to stay pregnant. The ruling is set against a complicated tapestry of parental relations before, during and after the pregnancy and child protection involvement. Since October 2025, G has been living in a residential care facility. When you look at their child protection history, back to 2012.
Today’s court decision gives the health service the authority to carry out the procedure on or before August 7. This represents at least the third time this year that a court has approved a termination for a girl 12 or younger. The court ruled that G had fell Gillick competent. So she doesn’t have the ability to consent to medical treatment by herself without help from her parents.
Background and Circumstances
G’s experience has opened up concerns about her safety and security as well as the systems that are meant to support young women like her. Now, living in residential care, she’s experienced tremendous trauma and hardships in her young life so far. It’s no wonder that given her pregnancy circumstances have complicated her situation in ways that have brought legal intervention.
G’s mother had previously denied her access to contraceptives and expressed initial disapproval of G’s pregnancy, believing it brought shame to the family. However, she went on to support her daughter’s decision to have an abortion.
Justice Hindman focused on G’s view of her pregnancy when she was 16. She talked about discrimination against young pregnant women, the fear she had about being approached in public. Further, G expressed concerns over childbirth pain and that she would not be able to care for herself.
Legal Considerations
The concept of Gillick competency plays a crucial role in determining whether a minor can make informed decisions regarding their own medical care. G had been evaluated and found to lack Gillick competence. This unprecedented finding forced the court to intervene and make decisions for them.
Justice Hindman forcefully articulated the need to focus on G’s present and future best interests in the decision. “The termination of [her] pregnancy by surgical operation is in [G’s] best interests and is necessary having regard to her current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances,” he stated.
This legal doctrine today serves as a shield to protect minors. It recognizes their increasing capacity to engage meaningfully in processes that affect the communities’ well-being. The court’s authorization reflects a sensitive approach toward G’s unique situation.
Family Dynamics
And the very dynamics that make G’s family an asset in her case profoundly complicate it. Initially unsupportive, G’s mother had expressed feelings of shame regarding her daughter’s pregnancy. As circumstances unfolded, she eventually acknowledged G’s need for autonomy in making this significant decision.
Justice Hindman was passionate about changing that point of view. He noted that G’s mother had previously denied her access to contraceptives and had not been supportive, even texting G to say that she had brought shame to the family. This portrayal of arc shows the emotional difficulty of family when put under severe duress.
Given these conditions, G did not mince words about how she was feeling. “I am listening. As I hear what you are saying, it disappears,” she stated during proceedings. Her description captures the inner hurt and chaos that often descends on a young girl during such a big life change.
