SA Education Department Admits Breach As Anti-LGBTQIA+ Lawsuit Against School Continues

A mother who is suing a South Australian school with the backing of an anti-LGBTQIA+ group has seen the government admit some level of fault in the proceedings.

The state government has now formally conceded it breached its duty of care to a student during a life education session at school.

The case centres on a 2024 “Respectful Relationships” session that sparked national debate around sex education, parental consent and LGBTQIA+ inclusion.

Court action backed by Anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group

The dispute traces back to March 2024 at Renmark High School, where Year 9 girls attended an hour long presentation delivered by a third-party provider linked to Headspace.

The session, designed to promote inclusivity and respectful relationships, became the subject of complaints after students alleged they were exposed to inappropriate sexual content.

In December 2025, The Star Observer reported that mother of six Nicki Gaylard planned legal action against the South Australian Department of Education, backed by Alliance Defending Freedom International, a group widely criticised for its anti-LGBTQIA+ stance.

At the time, Gaylard claimed her daughter had been exposed to explicit references, including incest and bestiality, during a discussion of the “plus” in LGBTQIA+.

The presenter allegedly spoke in sexually explicit terms about their own sexual preferences, and spoke about incest, using terms such as “sister love”, “brother love”.

“There was a slide for what the ‘plus’ means, and they just started randomly saying words that no-one knew, like bestiality,” one student told the ABC at the time.

“It was on the board when they were showing what the ‘plus’ meant.”

The Department apologised for the presentation, describing it as “not acceptable”, and suspended the provider involved.

Government admits breach but denies harm

As the case continues the South Australian government has now formally admitted in court documents that it breached its duty of care to the student.

“The first respondent admits that it breached a non-delegable duty of care to [Courtney] by failing to review the content of the presentation by FocusOne Health prior to its delivery, and by failing to notify and seek parental consent from [Ms Gaylard] prior to the delivery of the presentation to Year 9 students,” the defence states.

However, the government is continuing to fight the case, arguing that neither the student nor her mother suffered harm as a result.

It is also seeking to have the case dismissed and disputes several of the more serious allegations about the presentation’s content.

“The presenters at FocusOne Health did not represent that bestiality was included in LGBTIQA+ acronym and did not expressly or impliedly encouraged the normalisation of bestiality to the [Courtney] and other Year 9 girls,” the defence states.

“The presenters at FocusOne Health did not represent that incest was included in the LGBTIQA+ acronym and did not in any way condone or encourage the [Courtney] and other Year 9 girls to engage in incestuous conduct.”

The government further maintains that while images of surgical scars were shown, they were “not graphic, indecent, unlawful or inappropriate”.