"6.5. On 01/03/13 an anonymous referral was received. The referrer advised that they were aware that [M] uses "skunk" in front of [J] and [J] may be able to access the drug. The referrer alleged that [J] shows challenging behaviour and has head butted other children. The referrer also raised concerns in relation to [J] wearing a pink headband and nail varnish as it makes [M] happy. The referrer also raised concerns in regards to [M]’s mental health, her acting irrationally and the impact of this upon [J]’s emotional welfare”
“6.8 Between October 2013 and November 2013 the Local Authority received two referrals in relation [M]’s mental health, [J]’s presentation and [M] informing school that [J] was gender non conforming. The referrals are as follows:”
“6.9. On 22/10/13 the Department received a referral from the NSPCC who had received an anonymous call; the referrer was concerned that [M] had stated twice in a week that [J] is transgender and that [M] had also alluded that she was going to disappear with [J] and 'they will never find them'. The referrer also advised that [M] suspects that [J]’s older half brother [K] is too. The referrer was concerned about [M]’s mental health at that time.
“6.11. On the 14/11/13 a referral was received from [School A]. [School A] reported concerns regarding emotional abuse of [J] and [M]’s mental health. [M] had claimed that [J] is gender variant and should be allowed to go to school dressed as a girl. [M] had made accusations that [J] was being bullied at school because of gender variance. [M] was unable to provide names of the bullies and staff at school had not observed any bullying. Staff advised that at school [J] behaved no differently than the other children but they felt that [M] was unwilling to accept this and on occasions she reduced a teacher to tears due to her ‘forceful and confrontational’ manner.*
“6.12…[M] was also asking about sending [J] to a gender re-assignment clinic. School explained that in class, [J] doesn't display any differences to the other boys.”
“6.14. Following this the Local Authority received a number of referrals between March 2014 and October 2014 which reported concerns in relation to [J]’s presentation; [J] being allowed to dress as a girl; [M] requesting that [J] is referred to the Tavistock Centre and refusing input from CAMHS; [M] informing Health that [J] had been diagnosed with a medical condition although there had been no professional diagnosis and [M]’s mental health. During August and October 2014 the Department also received information from the police in relation to incidents that had occurred in the community where [M] felt that [J] was a victim of hate crime.
15. In May 2014 information was communicated to social services from their own Housing Department which was entirely in conflict with the information they had previously received. In particular it contained the alarming assertion, which as it transpired was entirely untrue, that J had been ‘diagnosed as transgender’. It perhaps requires to be re-emphasised that J was at this stage 4 years of age.
“6.16. On 30/05/2014 a referral was received from Housing who reported that they had concerns for [J] due to [M] claiming [J] had been diagnosed as transgender. They also advised that [M] had removed [J] from school due to them having issues with [J] dressing as a girl [M] was collected by housing staff for a meeting; staff reported that [J] looked dirty, had pen marks to the legs and was dressed as a girl. They also reported concerns for [M]’s mental health. No further action was taken from the Department due to there being no safeguarding concerns.
“6.19. On 16/07/2014 a referral was received from the GP requesting that a social worker visit the family due to concerns around [J] possible having gender identity disorder. The GP advised that they had spoken to the Tavistock Centre and that they advised to contact Children’s Services. No further action was taken.
“6.20. On 21/08/14 there was a contact from the police who were requesting agency checks in relation to [J] as it had been reported that [J] was possibly transgender and a victim of hate crime from neighbours. Information was provided and no further action was taken by the Department.
“6.22. On 24/09/14 a referral was received from The Health Centre requesting agency checks. Health advised that [M] had informed professionals” that [J] had been diagnosed with a health condition, yet the referrer is aware that there has not yet been a professional diagnosis. The caller was advised that there is no current social work involvement with the family, and no further action taken.
“6.23. On 27/09/14 a referral was received from the Police. Officers have attended the home address where [M] advised that [J] was born as a male but identifies as female and dresses as such. [M] advised that this has affected her relationship with [J]’s father and family and that this has resulted in them being served with a harassment order. [M] advised that a few days ago [J] was playing out in the garden when she has seen the other children pulling at [J]’s clothes to see if [J] had a penis. [M] intervened and took [J] inside informing the children they are no longer allowed to play with [J].
[M] did not report the incident to the police, there was another incident on the street which the police attended. [M] was concerned and reported the matter for fear of any escalation; this matter is recorded as a hate incident as there are no criminal offences. [M] is in contact with [a local charity] and a [Housing Association] whom are providing her with support, and no further action was taken.”
“6.25. On 22/10/14 a referral was received from [Learning Centre] enquiring as to whether [J] is subject to a Child Protection Plan. [J] moved to the setting from another setting, [J] has been finding it hard to settle in and [M] has now taken [J] out of school. [M] states she has taken [J] out of school due to [J] being bullied and the school have not resolved the issue. [J] has been attending 5 days a week and [M] is not reliable in the times that she drops [J] at school. Since summer [J] has been going into school upset which is out of character. Today [M] has become annoyed after waiting outside for 15 minutes, she then informed staff that she had no money and could not afford to send [J] anymore. Caller informed that they are concerned that [M] may not be coping. Child and Family assessment to be completed by the Department.”
This local authority has consistently failed to take appropriate intervention where there were strong grounds for believing that a child was at risk of serious emotional harm. I propose to invite the Director of Children’s Services to undertake a thorough review of the social work response to this case. Professional deficiencies to this extent cannot go unchecked, if confidence in this Local Authority’s safeguarding structures is to be maintained.
22. Not only are the conclusions of the report irreconcilable with the core information within it but it is striking that the Local Authority had moved into wholesale acceptance that J should be regarded as a girl. Once again, I make no apology for repeating the fact that J was still only 4 years of age. The conclusions of the report speak of J by use of the feminine pronoun. There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary. The cry for investigation went unheeded:
“23.5. The Local Authority have received a large number of referrals where concerns have been raised in relation to [J] presenting as a girl rather than concerns in relation [J]’s welfare and the care that is provided to [J]. It is evident that some agencies do not have a full understanding of gender non conforming children and have therefore contacted Children’s Service, sometimes when they have not met [J]. This clearly frustrates [M] and leaves her feeling that she is unsupported, and has caused her to feel stressed and anxious. Therefore [M] mistrusts professionals which is often interpreted as that she is unwilling to engage with services. ”
24. As the proceedings before Judge Penna progressed there developed a prevailing orthodoxy that J identified as a girl. Though I suspect the father continued to have his doubts, he had been unable to secure contact with his son and, driven to rely on others, I think began to assume that so many professionals having accepted that J was presenting as a girl, they must be correct.
“It is clear that [M] has strong opinions. Her response to Court intervention and requested assessments has been highly oppositional. This is not only in respect of any assessment of [J] but also of herself. She would appear to need to be in control and indeed choose those professional with whom she interacts.”
34. By contrast Ms Sambrooks’ assessment of F was entirely positive and wholly irreconcilable with the picture of him presented by M. M has traduced F and belittled him throughout the course of this litigation, at times, quite literally, snorting with derision. In particular M has presented F as insensitive to the whole issue of gender dysphoria. In fact Ms Sambrooks found him to be ‘very comfortable with diversity’. F’s elder son, who I have been told is zany and funny was noted ‘to have clearly been allowed to develop his own interests, beliefs and presentation’. Ms Sambrooks leaves the point thus:
‘I am therefore confused as to why M feels that F would not be able to accept J’s presentation’
M told me that J ‘was living in stealth’ by which was meant, she explained, that he was living life entirely as a girl. He dressed, at all times, like a girl and, it transpired, had been registered at a new General Practitioner’s as a girl. M told me that she had been advised to take this course by the Tavistock Centre, which is recognised as a specialist service for advice concerning gender dysphoria. Though I was by no means certain, I very much doubted that the Tavistock would have given this advice in respect of such a very young child.
It was for these reasons that I added to the Draft Order of the 25th November my own requirement that the Tavistock Records be filed and served upon the parties. That particular Order is recorded as having been ‘of the Court’s own motion’.
40. M sought to defeat the Order. She refused to give her consent for the release of the records. Once again the professionals bent to her will and the Order was not complied with.
On the 8th February the records were still not available and so I was driven to take the unusual step of ordering that the case would remain listed until the records were produced. It was also plain that J’s welfare required an Interim Care Order, both because he was at risk of significant emotional harm and, given M’s manipulative behaviour, parental responsibility required to be shared with the Local Authority.
41. Rather to my surprise the Tavistock records were produced within 2 hours. They did not support M’s contention that they had advised the ‘stealth’ arrangements. Indeed, the records were sparse and only served further to confirm that M’s cooperation was partial and on her own terms.Following a contested hearing, I found myself in agreement with J’s Guardian that the risk of leaving J in M’s care was unacceptable
. What was perfectly clear however and requires emphasis is that M was determined that J should live entirely as a girl. At only five years of age that did not strike me as offering J choice or even the opportunity to express any ambivalence or confusion. I was also entirely satisfied that whatever choices J made and however he presented, he would be loved and cared for and his choices respected in F’s care.
42. The February hearing was very stressful for M. However what struck me forcibly, both then and indeed at this final hearing, was that M spoke of J only in the somewhat opaque and convoluted argot of social work and psychology. She offered an impressive, intense and highly articulate evaluation of the problems faced by children with gender dysphoria but she conveyed no sense of J’s personality, temperament or enthusiasms, notwithstanding frequently being encouraged to do so. Repeatedly she struck me as a professional witness giving evidence about somebody else’s child.
45. Concerning J’s evolving presentation, Ms Sambrooks highlights the following:
“[J] came with or has gathered seven pairs of boots or shoes during the three months he has been at his father’s. They go with his feminine clothes. When they went shopping [F] took [J] to the girls section for underwear but he eventually chose boys shorts with a picture on them. [J] constantly rearranges his private parts and seems uncomfortable. He does not try to wear several pairs of knickers however as reported in the past. When he started wearing underpants [J] liked fancy underpants with Power Rangers or similar on them. Initially every two minutes he would say he did not like his floppy bits flopping around. He has also said ‘my mother does not like her floppy bits flopping around’ and that ‘she has got a big fat sandwich’. This somewhat took [F] and [P] aback. [J] will talk about his mother but does not get upset.”
46. J’s behaviour at school has also been interesting to read about:
“From day one [J] would put his hand up. He was mistaken for a girl once by a visiting teacher and asserted in front of everyone ‘no, I am a boy’.
There have been no reported references from school about any problems in the playground. There have been no gender issues reported and he has settled in quickly. He enjoys playing superheroes with the other children.”
) they are often very vocal and assertive, not to mention aggressive.