Judge over rules social services concerns

Thank you R0wantrees.

I bumped this thread discussing the 2019 case due to the significant role Dr Vickie Pasterski played as 'expert witness' and her links with Dr Helen Webberley (Gender GP)

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2019/30.html

And horrifying. Thanks R0wantrees

Interesting.

Helen Webberley Tribunal Tweets
mobile.twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1419558589648277511
The tribunal is scheduled to hear witnesses from Wednesday. IS notes that the defence will call Dr (Vickie) Pasterski at some point

Dr Pasterski is a consultant at the private London Transgender Clinic.

current thread following Dr Helen Webberley's GMC Tribunal: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4288795-Helen-Webberley

Bumping to link info as it seems research co-authored by Dr Pastesrki is being used by the NHS to support the claim that gender-identity develops in utero.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3589202-National-Autistic-Society-thinks-gender-id-develops-in-foetus?watched=1&msgid=87164986#87164986

Whistle blown serious Safeguarding, Duy of Care & ethical concerns by senior professionals:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3553935-Times-article-calls-to-end-transgender-experiment-on-children

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3515980-Times-article-Governor-quits-blinkered-Tavistock-clinic

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3517199-R4-Today-about-the-Tavistock-report-resignation

Guardian article:

Governor of Tavistock Foundation quits over damning report into gender identity clinic
(extract)
Marcus Evans, one of the governors of The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has resigned, after accusing its management of having an “overvalued belief in” the expertise of its Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) “which is used to dismiss challenge and examination”.

Evans’s decision to part company with the London-based trust, after a 35-year association, will intensify scrutiny of the service which has found itself in the eye of a storm as thousands of young people considering transitioning to another gender seek its help. (continues)

The service has been struggling to contain the fallout from an internal report by Dr David Bell, written in his capacity as then staff governor, which warned that “the GIDS service as it now functions [is] not fit for purpose and children’s ends are being met in a woeful, inadequate manner and some will live on with the damaging consequences”.

In his report, which was submitted to the trust’s board earlier this month and whose findings were first reported in the Observer last year, Bell expressed concern that the service was failing to fully consider psychological and social factors in a young person’s background – such as whether they had been abused, suffered a bereavement or had autism – which might influence their decision to transition. Such views are dismissed by many transgender rights activists who believe they play little, if any, part in a person’s desire to transition." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/23/child-transgender-service-governor-quits-chaos
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3516110-Tavistock-Governor-quits

This BMJ article has som useful information to understand the role and staus of 'expert witnesses':

(extract)
"Legal duties of an expert witness
Whether you are acting as an expert in civil, GMC, or coroner’s proceedings, you are expected to work within a fairly strict legal framework as laid down in the Civil Procedure Rules. This duty to the court is paramount, and you are required to give independent evidence, uninfluenced by the pressures of litigation and over-riding any duties to the instructing solicitors. You must be familiar with part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction, which provides guidance on the expert’s role and responsibilities, as well as the GMC’s guidance “Acting as an Expert Witness.”

What makes a good medical expert?
As an expert witness, the GMC requires you to be “honest, trustworthy, objective and impartial.” (continues)

You should restrict your opinion to specific areas in which you have relevant knowledge and direct expertise. A paediatric orthopaedic surgeon should not accept instructions on adult orthopaedic surgery if he or she has not carried out the procedure criticised for many years. Your expertise must be relevant at the time of the criticism and at the time of the report." (coninues)

This article has more information: www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/consultant-pack/acting-as-an-expert-witness

Its easy to see why Dr Pasterski was accepted as a 'gender identity' expert given her credentials.

One potential issue seems to be whether she also has sufficient professional expertise in the impact of severe early childhood abuse/trauma and understanding/recognising emotional abuse.

2015 document: "Responsibilities of psychiatrists who provide expert
opinion to courts and tribunals"

The expert’s duties to the court include:
z a duty to assist the process of justice

z a duty to act impartially, objectively and honestly

z a duty to reveal any actual or potential conflict of interest

z a duty to make clear the limits of their knowledge or competence

z a duty to give testimony only in their area or field of expertise

z a duty to state the substance of all facts and instructions given
to them which are material to the opinions expressed in their
report or on which their opinions are based

z a duty to indicate the source of factual information, including
where they have no personal knowledge

z a duty to be accurate and complete

z a duty to mention all matters that they regard as relevant to the
opinions they have expressed

z a duty to draw to the attention of the court all matters that might
adversely affect their opinion

z a duty not to include in their evidence anything that has been
suggested to them by anyone, including the lawyers instructing
them, without forming their own independent view of the matter

z a duty to provide the court with evidence about the range of
opinion, or reasonable opinion, in that area or field, including in
regard to the case at hand

z a duty to make it clear if their opinion is in is any way qualified
or provisional

z a duty promptly to communicate any change of opinion and the
reasons for such change (continues)

www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/college-report-cr193.pdf?sfvrsn=c0381b24_2

As Andrew Gilliagan's Times article demonstrates, some of Dr Pasterski's evidence is in conflict with the approach and professional opinion of the NHS Tavistock (which secifically treats children).

does Dr Pastesrki have sufficient paediatric expertise & experience or is her paractice predominately working with adults as seems likely?

Its also important to consider the substantial whistleblown Safeguarding & Duty of Care growing concerns of other doctors from the field about the medical treatment of children.

See important panel at the House of Lords this week discussing these issues:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3583824-Let-your-MP-know-about-this-asap

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145612-Tavistock-psychologist-is-worried-about-rush-to-label-kids-as-trans

I'm so glad the times covered this case.

My heart goes out to those poor kids

This case reminds me very strongly of the Challenors. Before their children were eventually taken into care, social services had to withdraw a request to remove them from their parents due to Munchhausen by proxy. They didn’t have enough evidence, and the parents had an expert witness on side!

As a pp said further up, social services have to have a judge’s permission to withdraw cases.

The Challenor kids were eventually taken into care (I don’t know how or why), and one of them identifies as trans. According to Lisa Muggeridge, a history of abuse is more prevalent among children who identify as trans, than those who do not.

I won’t be surprised if SS are keeping a close eye on these foster parents, though sadly, if they are bankrupt that may not do a fat lot of good. But we can at least hope these two won’t be having any more children placed with them.

stream.org/detransitioned-man-answers-questions-about-transgenderism/
it was apparent that I had developed a dissociative disorder in childhood to escape the trauma of the repeated cross-dressing by my grandmother and the sexual abuse by my uncle

From the age of about 3 or 4 to 10/11 I was desperate to be a boy, my brother seemed to have much more fun than my sister, I had football boots and a football, played with the boys, wrestled with my brother.

I dread to think what might happen to a child like me these days if my parents had been taken in by someone telling them I had obviously been born in the wrong body. Scares the hell out of me!

This is what worries me to, in fact it probably went on longer for me. Into my early teens, I hated having boobs and wished I was a boy so I could go to scouts and not have to wear skirts at school.

I'm a happy women now with two kids, just kicked in a little latter for me. Now my DD who is similar to me gets to go to all the things I couldn't thanks to a slightly less sexist world. But I'm sure some parents would have put me on hormonal suppressants now I can't stand that idea.

Lancashire County Council, eh?

From their information for those considering becoming foster carers

As one of our foster carers you can expect to receive payments of at least £115 extra per week. This means newly approved foster carers can expect to receive between £241 and £415 for each child they care for.

www.lancashire.gov.uk/fostering/

And the parents in this case are eager to foster more children.

Since the children in question are 7 and 3 it can be assumed that the younger one is along the elder one. I know I would have done with my older sister (who would deffo be a bloke there days judging by the current climate). Call me Sir...

It looks like that LA quickly transfer LAC to SGO - saves lots of money but risky!!!

I do wonder how much of this is down to money. Maybe also the difficulty of recruiting foster carers for children with complex needs.

Quick transfer from LAC to SGO
Continued placement of very vulnerable children when risks had already been identified
SS not opposing this decision

exwhyzed said Lancashire council are about to go bust. They are not the only council in dire financial straits. Local authorities have born the brunt of austerity for years and vital services have been quietly crumbling.

Off to rewatch Lisa Muggeridge.

Gilligan has an article in today's Times about the case, it's pointed out that it's unusual for two children in the same family to be trans, there's indication that a third child may also have been 'questioning' their gender.

The school apparently raised concerns about one of the child's unhappiness after social transition, but it all seems to have been disregarded by the judge.
www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-tangled-case-of-the-brothers-who-became-girls-aged-seven-and-three-dq7spwkdq

It looks like that LA quickly transfer LAC to SGO - saves lots of money but risky!!!
Solicitors usually say to avoid the term FII. It is difficult to evidence, and really makes no difference - demonstrating the harm is what's important.

exwhyzed the local authority could only withdraw the care proceedings with the permission of the court. That's in the Family Procedure Rules 29.4 here. So the reason the case is heard is for the judge was whether he should permit the withdrawal of proceedings as the local authority wished. The bit of the judgment which covers that is from paragraph 61 down and he gives his reasons for deciding he should give permission at paragraph 75. There is clear case law that he must give his permission if the local authority would not be able to make out the conditions for a care order to be made (called the threshold). He considers that that is the case here, esp given the expert reports.

I agree that there are often reasons to be concerned about the influence that particular experts can have, particularly in niche and controversial areas like this, though I don't know anything about the particular experts here. I do think it's unfair to criticise the judge especially as a lot of people commenting don't seem to have quite understood what it was he was deciding. I agree with the PP who said "For the Judge, the local authority had withdrawn the case and independent experts deemed the children settled and happy. Why would he disrupt the lives of these children if the professionals said that all was well? Very tricky."

Much appreciation for Dr Pasterski on www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/

She apparently works (or worked) closely with Dr Webberley.

Unless the school, social services and the NHS were all involved in a massive conspiracy, it seems very odd that the numerous accounts of injuries, MBP type behaviour and 3 unrelated children within the same family identifying as trans - one from a young age - have been discounted.

It's quite a complex judgment and I think some people are missing exactly what was decided. That's not helped by the title of this thread. The judge was approving the course of action that social services wanted to take, not overruling them.

My understanding from reading it was that the LA withdrew the application following the expert testimony but the judge decided to go ahead with the hearing anyway, not to back social services up but to completely exonerate the family ? Have I got that wrong?

These poor kids - the foster parents should not be allowed to take in other kids - the reoccurrence of this identity issue points to Munchausen by proxy and that is enough to deny them further children.

Grumpygran8 the parts that you have quoted is the original set of allegations that the LA made in seeking a care order. However, having looked at the expert reports and considered the later evidence they decided that they could no longer rely on the allegations and so withdrew them.

It's quite a complex judgment and I think some people are missing exactly what was decided. That's not helped by the title of this thread. The judge was approving the course of action that social services wanted to take, not overruling them.