Foster children (3 and 7) transitioning. Times article

If you can afford a family swimming pool it seems you can do anything without proper questions being asked by social services because you can take it to court with 'experts'.

Someone was suggesting that it might involve this case:

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

This includes:
The threshold criteria that were drafted in July 2018 asserted that the children were suffering and were likely to suffer significant harm, such harm being attributable to the care given to them not being what is expected of a reasonable parent. The nature of the harm/likelihood of harm alleged was neglect and impairment of the child's physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and behavioural development. The central limbs were contained within 6 paragraphs each supported by 'facts relied upon' in subparagraphs.
i) TP and CP frequently seek referrals/diagnosis for the children in their care for medical conditions relying on symptoms which are not witnessed by other professionals involved in their care. This results in unnecessary investigations by medical professionals and has resulted in them being recorded as having health conditions which are not evidence based. (The facts relied upon identified issues in connection with the health of E, R, H, K, and MY, a foster child.)
ii) TP and CP persistently pursue mental health diagnoses for children in their care. They provide information to professionals which is not supported by other professionals involved with the children's care and use their knowledge of mental health services to provide information designed to maximise the chances of a referral to specialists. This behaviour has escalated recently (9 facts dating from 2006 to 2018 are identified in support of this).
iii) TP and CP have acted in a precipitate manner in relation to perceived gender dysphoria in children in their care.
iv) TP and CP are resistant to acknowledging any potential disadvantages to R and H of being identified as transgender prematurely and the impact on their emotional, physical and sexual development. They are unable to provide appropriate and balanced support to R and H to make informed decisions as they get older.
v) C has had four A&E attendances for incidents due to a lack of appropriate supervision by TP and CP (Incidents on 7 April 2014, 26 October 2014, 13 June 2015 and 21 February 2016 are relied on.)
vi) TP and CP have failed to prioritise the needs of the children in their care. Despite having care of a large number of children with complex health needs and presentations who need a high level of attention, TP and CP have consistently sought to have additional foster children placed in their care in order to meet their own needs, whether emotional or financial (11 facts are identified which are said to support this).

(TP and CP are the parents.)

I am no expert, indeed the only previous family court judgement I have read was the one deciding that David Challenor's children should be taken into care. Both appear to have involved parents with concerns about their children having physical as well as mental and gender issues.

It's been a while since I did family law - when did the paramountcy of the child give way to the vanity of the adult?

I didn't realise that either. Further down it says they want more children to foster. It sounds like the children are being experimented on. It also mentions a swimming pool. One of the kids almost drowned. They must be very well off it wouldn't surprise me if that's why they're getting away with it.

This is awful, those poor children. I didn’t realise social services couldn’t remove a child from foster careers they had concerns about without court involvement.

Pasterski is the surname. Her first name is Vickie.

It is clear what is happening here and I cannot believe a judge agreed to keeping the children (particularly the Foster child) with the parents.

As pp said, the Foster child has likely suffered trauma prior to being put into the care system. Utterly vile.

They've dropped all their concerns?! :o

There is another thread but it's not terribly clear it's about this case from the title: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3582478-Judge-over-rules-social-services-concerns

That article is very damning (as is the full judgement which seems to disregard the entire body of evidence on the basis of some dodgy statements by Pasterski)

A prime example of the "vegan cat" argument. It's obvious what is happening here.

Utterly shocking. Haven't read the full judgement yet but it's hard to see from the article how the judge could have come to this conclusion.