@rowdywoman1 thx for that informative and disturbing paper. The mother demonstrates all the signs of a Cluster B personality disorder from her reported behaviours, for example Narcissistic Personality Disorder or the like - or being under someone else's control (e.g. a cultic relationship). Irrespective, her behaviour is and was doing harm to her child. And because of her unrelenting, aggressive assertions and behaviour, plus obfuscation and deliberately withholding - instead of those tasked with safeguarding confronting her, they seemed to have enabled the very behaviour that was causing the child such profound harm to his core personality, at so young an age. I'm not surprised that some vocal, entitled males are now expressing concern about a potential generation of neutered boys. Thank goodness for that common sense female judge. I've pasted a couple of extracts below for those who want a summary (please note M = Mother, F = Father and J=Child :
[M] cannot see that [J] may be consciously or unconsciously trying to please her by assuming a female gender identity now that [M] has formed the view that this is [J]'s preference."
………
I agree with that approach. I consider that M has caused significant emotional harm to J in her active determination that he should be a girl. I find that she has overborne his will and deprived him of his fundamental right to exercise his autonomy in its most basic way. Whether J chooses to present as a girl or not, ought to be his choice. This is not a case about gender dysphoria, rather it is about a mother who has developed a belief structure which she has imposed upon her child. I accept the evidence of Dr Hellin that M has become 'enmeshed' with J, in that she is unable to distinguish his feelings from her own. As such she is ill-equipped to meet J's emotional needs. M told me in her evidence that if J were not returned to her care, as she correctly anticipated might happen, he ought to be removed from his father and placed with an independent foster carer where, she reasoned, he would be free from any pressure to be a boy. This proposal, which was genuinely advanced, illustrates the chasm that has developed between J's needs and M's capacity to meet them.
My experience in the Family Division leaves me with little doubt that some children, as young as 4, 5, 6 years of age may identify strongly with their opposite gender. Such children can experience rejection and abuse arising from ignorance both on a personal and institutional level. Though none of the parties referred me to it, I have read the House of Commons Select Committee report 'Transgender Equality', dated 14th January 2016, which investigates the challenges in securing sensitive NHS care and accessing affirming educational environments for transgender adults and children. It is important that such children are listened to and their views afforded respect but, to my mind, they are ill served by premature labelling. What they require, as F has so capably demonstrated, is the opportunity to develop their identity in which ever way it evolves. J was not only deprived of that space and opportunity by his mother, he was pressed into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother's needs and little, if anything, to do with his own.
Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skills and, it has to be said, common sense. They failed properly to investigate M's assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high profile issue.
Whilst I have been greatly impressed by Ms Davidson's social work skills in this case, I reject her analysis as to the appropriate legal framework to be applied. It is, in my view, self evident that the challenges that lie ahead for J are significant. It seems to me that he faces two serious risks. Firstly, he may lose direct contact with his mother altogether. She has been the centre of his world for most of his life. He worries about her. Were she to break free from her rigid and ultimately false belief structure she would have a huge amount to offer as a parent. I believe J would grieve the loss of his mother bitterly. Secondly, if contact is not monitored very carefully, with reference to this judgment and to the history of this case, it has the potential to corrode J's core identity. Furthermore, experience shows us that adolescence can often be a time when earlier psychological harm begins to take its toll. I consider that this father should be given the maximum support available, buttressed by imposing upon the Local Authority, the statutory duties of a Care Order. In addition the permissive flexibility of an order pursuant to s.34 (4) Children Act 1989 strikes me as particularly suited to the circumstance of this case.
To some extent Ms Davidson foreshadows this in her final statement:
The Local Authority care plan regarding [J]'s contact with his mother has been the most difficult part of this care plan to formulate. The Local Authority is mindful that there are many positives within the contact between [M] and [J], that [J] appears to enjoy contact sessions and that [J]'s verbally expressed wish is to live with his mother. [J] clearly closely identifies with his mother, worries about her and that she forms a big part of [J]'s understanding of his identity. However, as set out in Section 5, there are several concerns regarding the impact of contact on [J]. These primarily relate to the amount of influence that [M] holds over [J] and the amount to which, her views regarding [J] and [F], limit [J]'s ability to develop his own identity and relationship with [F].
Whilst I share those concerns I consider them to be of such significance that they require continuing and proactive Local Authority intervention. More generally I reject the easy assumption that a public law order is, of necessity, significantly intrusive to a child's life. It need not be, it can be understated, sensitive and light touch where the child is concerned. I am very pleased that the Local Authority has agreed that Ms Davidson may continue to be assigned to this case. I am confident that she can implement the Care Order as I intend it should be.
There is no formula by which frequency of contact may be calculated. F considers that J needs a period of decompression whilst he starts a new school year and that contact should otherwise be structured around his needs. I am prepared to be guided by a parental instinct which has proved steady in challenging circumstances. I propose that contact be suspended until the October half term and thereafter continue on a monthly basis subject to the caveats I have identified from the evidence.
J has two very intelligent parents. F's empathy and sensitivity enable him to offer his son a great deal. M's lively and creative mind, her sense of fun and her powerful capacity to express herself are also gifts from which her son may derive very great benefit. Whilst Dr Hellin maybe right in her bleak prognosis about M's capacity to change, human nature can be remarkably resourceful and resilient. The Family Courts sometimes sees changes in human behaviour which confound expert expectation. I hope for J's sake that this is such a case.