Parent of Trans Teen Accuses Queensland Government of Data Leak That Could Have ‘Outed’ Her Child

The state government disclosed private details about the parent of a trans teenager – information she claims potentially exposed her child – to a stranger.

Allegations of “Intimidation” and “Privacy Violation”

The revelation emerged as the government was accused of “coercion” and “a breach of confidentiality” after requesting confidential health records from guardians of trans youth who are considering a additional legal challenge to its disputed ban on puberty blockers.

Latest Official Directive on Hormone Treatments

Recently, the state health official, Tim Nicholls, issued a fresh directive prohibiting the prescription of hormone blockers for trans individuals, just hours after the state’s supreme court determined the initial ban was unlawful.

Guardian Australia has spoken to several parents who have contacted Nicholls for a official paper called a explanation of decision – a formal explanation of why the authorities decided to ban puberty blockers in the region. By law, the paper must be supplied under the state’s Judicial Review Act.

Demanded Health Information

All four were asked by the Queensland health department for particulars of their child’s medical history, including the minor’s identity, their birthdate and any other evidence which supports your child having a medical confirmation of gender identity disorder”.

The details were requested before the explanation would be released.

The email, which has been reviewed by the media, also instructed them to verify if your teen is a client of the youth gender service so that we can confirm the information submitted with the health service,” states the communication, which was sent last Friday.

Mothers Describe Demand as Invasion of Privacy

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

One parent said she was reluctant to divulge the information because the authorities had mistakenly sent her information to a another individual.

“It feels like having to ‘out’ your child to actually get a reply; like, it’s terrifying,” she said.

Case of Louise*

Louise*, who cannot be legally identified because it would also reveal or “out” her child, was among those who asked for a statement of reasons both times.

Earlier, the department emailed a reply meant for her to someone else, revealing her name and location – and the detail that she had a transgender child – to a third party. She said a department official later said sorry by telephone; the Guardian has obtained an email from the department confirming the error.

She said she felt “ill and vulnerable” as a consequence of the error.

“My child is very reserved. She is deeply afraid of being exposed in any social setting. She dislikes anyone to know that she’s transgender,” the mother said.

“I respect that to my very being as much as humanly possible. The only time I ever disclose is out of necessity for obtaining entry to services and exclusively to individuals I deem incredibly safe and I know well.”

The parent was especially worried about the suggestion it would be “verified” by the hospital.

She said the request was “threatening” and “feels threatening”.

Additional Parent Expresses Concerns

Another mother 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 details,” 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 them.”

She wrote back saying the department had asked for an “extraordinary amount of information”.

“I would not share that data to another entity that requested it, particularly in the context of the present environment,” she said.

“It’s such highly confidential stuff. You would not reveal, for example, your HIV status to the government office, you know. You’d be hesitant and careful to submit any of that information to a bunch of bureaucrats, essentially.”

Legal Service Weighing Second Lawsuit

The advocacy organization, which represented the parent in her case, was considering a new legal action, it said recently.

Its president, Ren Shike, said the decision had impacted about 500 Queensland children and their relatives and it was “important to promptly enable the supply of reasons so that minors and their parents can comprehend the logic behind this ruling, which has had such a devastating impact on their medical care”.