Foster children (3 and 7) transitioning. Times article

I remember that info. I think it might have been Michael Laidlaw in reference to US kids. Not 100% sure on that though.

I read somewhere that there is a high proportion of trans identifying kids in the looked after population, but I can’t remember where I read it or if it was U.K. figures or not. Does anyone know where I might have picked up this info snippet?

I suppose you could interpret a high percentage in foster/adoptive care as ‘trans kids are rejected by birth families’ OR as ‘traumatised kids are more likely to experience dysphoria-like symptoms as a reaction to that trauma’.

Anonymous case studies mentioned by ‘controversial’ (aka not-immediately-affirming) doctors such as Zucker (Canada) suggest the latter, but the former could explain the presence of more than 1 trans kid in a foster family...

... or at least, it could if the child was indicating trans identity before being fostered, clearly not the case in the younger child in this family (too young to express it).

The question about experts - this is usually argued over at about the second hearing, and then the Letter of Instruction to the expert has to be agreed. It may have been at that point that the LA took their eye off the ball.

That's what I'm assuming.

This story is horrifying.

Even if you are someone who believes that true transgender identity exists in a small proportion of the population you must surely recognise that 3 children in one family (2 of them being fostered) is a massive red flag for something else going on.

The question about experts - this is usually argued over at about the second hearing, and then the Letter of Instruction to the expert has to be agreed. It may have been at that point that the LA took their eye off the ball.

It was heard by a High Court judge which may be significant in terms of how serious the courts are taking this.

This is nightmarish. How can responsible adult people be allowed to do this to small children in their care? It’s awful.

I'm glad this awful case has had a decent write up. The previous daily mail piece didn't make clear what had happened.

It's in the Mail again now
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7019831/Three-year-old-changes-boy-girl-living-foster-parents-son-transitioned-aged-seven.html

And interestingly has a link to the story in The Times at the bottom.

As a foster carer, I find this odd in many ways. It's all too easy for SS to remove children from FCs.
It could be because of the SGO- effectively they are no longer fostered.

this decision must be appealed

There is no party to appeal it! That's the point! Only the judge could have told the LA they could not discontinue and he did not!

What also strikes me is that the parts of Pasterski's evidence the judge relied on were not concerned with the individual children but with treatment protocols - which are at odds with the NHS.

Yes, exactly.

One would have hoped that, given warning bells being rung by other experts, the judge might have questioned this and even required further reports before accepting the LA's application to discontinue.

So far over 70 comments on that article, every single one horrified at what is being done to those children-this decision must be appealed.

There's no information in the report about TP's and CP's two elder birth children, as they are now adults in their early 20s. There seem to have been concerns about the third and fourth birth children.

People who know about fostering and child protection, I assume it's extremely difficult to find foster parents willing to take on children who've been through major trauma in early life? For understandable reasons.

In August 2013 an anonymous referral received by the local authority from a member of the extended family under the heading 'preoccupation with and encouragement of gender dysphoria in 3 children'.

H would have been less than 2 years old at the time.

A quote from Dr Pasterski on twitter:

I support @MyWebDoctorUK. Dr Webberley is saving lives and saving families!
From webberley's own site it seems she makes referrals to Pasterski.

But how did this report, by a clear extremist in the field and holding contrary positions to NHS best practice, come to be the only one from a "gender expert" presented to the court?

My impression (though some of this is hard to parse) is that the foster parents privately got assessments of their parenting and reports about the child's gender transition. These reports supported the parents enough to undermine the SS case for removal.

It's worth noting that removal from a long established placement is a big step- the decision not to doesn't mean there are no concerns, merely that parenting has been shown to be 'good enough'.

I agree Lang. Someone on the other thread pointed out there had been a very quick progression from LAC to SGO and this would have been much cheaper for SS.

21 December 2012 - H and C were placed as foster children with the couple

12 November 2013 C and H were made the subject of special guardianship orders

Less than 11 months. I don't know how usual this timescale is. Concerns had already been raised by an extended family member at this point.

What also strikes me is that the parts of Pasterski's evidence the judge relied on were not concerned with the individual children but with treatment protocols - which are at odds with the NHS.

kesstrel there was a BBC story last week about a supposed "wave" of false allegations of FII. That must be terrible but I'm afraid it'll make it harder for SS to bring cases such as this one.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48151355

It's the father who was a social worker. It does occur to me that 'swimming pool' could be one of those oversized paddling pools people put up in their gardens in the summer. Very dangerous if not supervised, but not indicative of being rich.

TP was born in 1967 and CP in 1969. In 1997 their first child was born with their second in September 1999. They are now adults. E was born in 2002. In May 2003 TP and CP were approved as foster carers and in June 2004 CP gave up work as a social worker to become a full-time carer. Over the years they fostered many children. One of the children EP had gender identity issues. She left their care was 2007 having been with CP and TP for some 3 ½ years. In February 2006 CP and TP third child N was born. Subsequently N and a variety of developmental and health concerns.

The proofreading of that report is very poor. The paragraph above clearly states that TP (mother) and CP (father) had two children who are now adult. They had a third child E who is now 17 and a fourth child, called N at birth, R now, who is the one who transitioned at 7 and is now 13. The report says N was the third child.

I was also struck by some similarities with the Challoner report. I'm chary of reading too much into that as I don't know how unusual this kind of thing is.

In respect of TP, Dr Hellin concluded that she did not have any personality disorder or any psychiatric condition. She observed that her identity and sense of self and of competence is very much based on her role as a mother carer and the proceedings have attacked this making her feel very insecure vulnerable, self-doubting and frightened. TP's history and presentation is not consistent with some of the markers of those who perpetrate FII. Her own health problems from 2003 onwards may have been caused by fibromyalgia and arthritis which were not identified until later. She did not reach any clear conclusion on the extent to which TP's health complaints might have a psychological component; whether somatoform or fabricated. She noted that TP herself considered that since they were diagnosed they have been well managed. In respect of CP, he concluded that he did not have a history of mood or personality disorder or a psychiatric condition. His physical health has been unremarkable. He is a relatively psychologically resilient man without specific psychological difficulties. There is nothing to suggest that physical or mental health conditions have any particular significance in his family or his upbringing and there are no psychological factors identified would explain why he might inappropriately seek referral or diagnoses for children or act precipitately with regard to gender dysphoria. Research in relation to non-perpetrating fathers of children who have been subject to FII shows they tend to be uninvolved in the family; CP is certainly not uninvolved; he takes a central role in the children's care. Both were reflective about the issue of gender dysphoria albeit were overly pragmatic about R or perhaps complacent about H.

The judge relies very heavily on Pasterski's report.

Yes, Pencils and that would seem to be because the legal team for the foster mother/mother according to the judgement rely largely on the report of Dr Pasterski. Because the LA were asking permission to withdraw from care proceedings. But how did this report, by a clear extremist in the field and holding contrary positions to NHS best practice, come to be the only one from a "gender expert" presented to the court?

I do smell money issues.

Looking at Reddit, it seems Vickie and Helen W have a nice little referral thing going on

I'm sure that finances something to do with it LangCleg . The decision not to go ahead would have been made at the highest level and would have taken into account the costs, possible negative publicity and the notorious difficulties of proving emotional abuse / fabricated illness.

Judges can make catastrophic decisions - being influenced by litigious parents and their advocates who use the system to force social services into a 'hands off' relationship with them and sometimes - in the face of all evidence - get custody despite being a threat to children. Like poor Ellie Butler:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43415018 - the individual social workers who raised the concerns

The judge relies very heavily on Pasterski's report.

Para 75:

... in respect of the concerns about the early and complete social transition of R and H, and the alleged unwillingness of CP and TP to recognise the long-term implications of such an early transition the evidence of Dr Pasterski compellingly rebuts these concerns. Her evidence in respect of the '2 critical historical misunderstandings' not only explains the approach of CP and TP but provides clinical justification for that approach. Notwithstanding even the Guardian's caution in respect of the openness of CP and TP to the possibility of an alteration in the children's attitude to their gender identity I conclude that Dr Pasterski's evidence demonstrates that it is obvious that neither of these grounds would meet threshold.

From Pasterski's evidence at para 58:

In her report she identifies that there have been recent changes to the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria and that research on mental health and transgender children have shed light onto critical historical misunderstandings related to clinical presentation in gender dysphoria. Firstly, that children who present with gender dysphoria are likely to desist in their cross-gender identification and secondly that gender dysphoria is inherently associated with high rates of comorbid psychopathology. She notes both have been shown to be false. She identifies that these misunderstandings arise from two particular factors. Firstly earlier studies which showed that up to 80% of children desist in gender dysphoria included children who presented with gender incongruent behaviour but did not necessarily state the wish to be or that they were the other gender. Thus children displaying gender variance may have been wrongly diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As a result of this treatment protocols previously incorporated a watch and wait approach which had prevented truly dysphoric children from transitioning which had likely resulted in increased rates of depression and anxiety. As Dr Pasterski puts it 'Put simply, many who have shown to desist were likely not dysphoric and psychopathology in those who persisted was likely due to forbidden expression of their true gender identity.'

What is missing from this judgment is the Tavistock reports concerning the older child R, that will have been somewhere in the unabbreviated court bundle.

Para 9:

I have also read large sections of the court bundle in particular the contents of the Core bundle. Even the more limited court bundle that I was provided with ran to 6 lever arch files and I understand the unabbreviated edition runs to many more. ... Given the huge volume of evidence and the extensive arguments which have been deployed this judgment cannot aspire to being anything like a full evaluation of the evidence and the arguments but is confined to what I consider to be necessary and proportionate to deal with the issue that remains in dispute.

The judge's decision hinges on whether this is a case where it is 'obvious' that the threshold for care proceedings cannot be reached (type 1) or whether this is not obvious and the threshold could still be reached (type 2). Only in a type 2 case would he then have to consider whether a full facts investigation was necessary before granting permission for SS to withdraw.

The judge decided, wrt the allegations of inappropriately transitioning very young children, that the case was type 1 - i.e. that it was 'obvious' the threshold could not be reached - on the basis of Pasterski's BS evidence.

I am betting that Vickie is not an expert on attachment disorders in fostered children.

This.

Once again gender ideologically is being promoted over other psychologies and serious mental health disorders.

Any play therapist would say that young children, especially those who have been abused, exploring a range of clothes and toys is normal.

I want to know why the previous judge in the case was happy with an extremist "gender expert" who takes a contrary position to current NHS best practice.

Is it therefore the situation that the parents/legal team were able to engage this "gender expert" but the LA could not afford to commission a report by a practitioner who concurs with the NHS position?

This is what happens when you don’t pay judges properly. The lower courts are full to the brim with dimwits.

Majestic in many eastern European countries surnames are gendered. In Polish the names ending on ski are male and ska female, I know because my husband is Polish. However sometimes second or third generation immigrants anglicise their names and use only the masculine form, ence my question.

Another example of gendered surnames, Slovakia adds 'ova' to the end of for females ie Navratilova is a female surname.