High Court Appeal by mother to prevent her child being prescribed puberty blockers privately on reaching 16

Merry Terfmas everyone!

Transgender Trend on the win:

Child Q case: significant win for mother in Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment today that the previous judgment to dismiss proceedings once a child turned 16 was wrong. In the case of Child Q, where the child wanted cross-sex hormones from private clinic Gender Plus but the mother opposed this treatment, proceedings will now be adjourned until the result of further assessment of the child by Gender Plus.

It is the first time the Court has agreed it has the power to override the consent to medical treatment of a child aged 16 or over. It essentially changes the Family Law Reform Act by saying that a child’s right to consent or refuse treatment may be overridden by the courts when a parent is in disagreement.

We are very pleased that the Court has handed down a judgment that strengthens protections for a very vulnerable age group. It is a judgment that gives hope to the more cautious parents in disputes about their child’s progression to experimental and life-changing hormones.

This is a significant judgment not only for this family but for all parents who disagree about medical ‘transition’ for their child. The Court has opened a door for parents who want their child to wait before making a decision to undergo medical intervention that is unevidenced and irreversible. The judgment concedes that the courts have a role to play in this risky area of medicine and that this extra protection extends to children aged 16 and over who were previously left unprotected... More

^https://www.transgendertrend.com/child-q-win-mother-court-appeal/^

So two girls in one blended family who both happen to have gender dysphoria, but social contagion is definitely not a thing.

Great result for the child's mother. What a nightmare for her.

Absolutely! Massive red flag for safeguarding of both children. Having a relationship with a stepsibling is pretty concerning. Hard to work out the biological sex of the second party - is a transgender male a male or a female? From the use of the word 'also' I think the children are in a same sex relationship.

Fantastic!

Some commentary - Transgender Trend:

'This judgement means that the courts will now have a role to play in cases where hormonal treatments to under 18's are contested.'

Wow wow wow

It sounds like they are advising caution regarding prescribing cross sex hormones to a minor as well as puberty blockers! Is that your understanding?

Just caught up on this.

Halle-fucking-lujah!!!

👏👏👏👏👏

Common sense and sunlight are entering the room.

any doctor will have to exercise great caution before prescribing hormones to a minor
I read that as a warning.

Agreed. This presumably has other implications e.g. wherever any parent or parents still have parental rights (which is true for all but adoption I think?), if one or more parent doesn't agree with their under 18 child having access to CSH, this pathway is blocked.

I'm thinking of the children who may have been coerced away from their parents, believing that they are bigoted and a danger if they don't affirm the child's gender identity. If instead those parents want to exercise caution.

From all the updates this mum has written (e.g. the crowd fund pages) she has kept a level head throughout. Despite those around her losing theirs, including many professionals who should know better. One day, her daughter will hopefully recognise this incredible strength and unconditional love.

' it was clear, as the judge acknowledged, that Gender Plus could not comply with recommendation 9 of the Cass Review as to the need for the case to be discussed by a national multi-disciplinary team of the kind envisaged. It is impossible now to predict the outcome of Gender Plus’s assessment (we were told it is in progress, if not complete), nor the consequences that might or might not occur as a result of a potential non-compliance by the private
provider with the good practice suggested by Dr Cass.'

It's saying that Gender Plus isn't following NHS guidance or rules, but that they should wait to hear what the Gender Plus assessment says. Hm.

The language discusses how rapidly the landscape is changing, the paucity of evidence ...

any doctor will have to exercise great caution before prescribing hormones to a minor

I read that as a warning.

' Given the advice from the Cass Review any doctor will have to exercise great caution before prescribing hormones to a minor, and so it seems quite likely he will have to wait for another two years, but that time will go fast. He needs calm and dispassionate advice over the coming months and years, and the ability to recognise it as such'

'In October 2023, the mother sought and obtained permission to instruct a Consultant Endocrinologist and a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist to provide expert advice as to the young person’s capacity and the effect of giving or delaying hormone treatment.
Neither expert opinion was obtained. No Consultant Endocrinologist in this country was prepared to give expert evidence. A Consultant Psychiatrist was identified, but the young person refused to agree to his medical records being disclosed. The young person was unwilling to engage in an assessment which was not part of an assessment towards a treatment pathway.'

The judgment seems to be saying the court will keep considering this case and will look at a decision to give CSH if that’s what the G+ assessment recommends. I don’t think it prejudges whether CSH will be allowed or not, or have I misunderstood?

I'd like to see Baroness Cass giving a view on the gender plus assessment.

Did anyone else notice in the judgement that the child in question, also has a trans step sibling they live with, but who they're also in an intimate relationship with?

Surely that's a cause for concern?

For the reasons I have given, I would allow the appeal and adjourn these proceedings to allow for the completion of the child’s assessment by Gender Plus so that, if necessary, that assessment can be considered by the court. In formal terms, I would adjourn the proceedings with no continuing orders in place, and order that the proceedings may be restored to the judge by either party for further directions to be made.

Noting Gender Plus, and the fact they're unlikely to apply critical thinking to medically transitioning a teenager, this looks like a qualified win. However, it's interesting that a court might critically examine their assessment.

'BREAKING The Court has handed down a judgment today that extends protection for all under-18's when parents are in dispute about their child's treatment with cross-sex hormones. This is a step forward that recognises the court has a role to play in this area. We will post news reports as they come.'

https://x.com/transgendertrd/status/1869696804150780209

I still find it incredible that legal rulings are using preferred pronouns.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/ReQ.APPROVED-JUDGMENTS.pdf

TT have reported the judgement has been handed down extending protection for all under 18s when parents are in dispute about the child’s treatment with cross sex hormones. They are going to update.

https://x.com/transgendertrd/status/1869696804150780209?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

I think that, of all the horrific cases I’ve heard of, this is the one that horrifies me most. That poor mother.
I hope to God the court sees sense.

Thank you for sharing this. From the article:

“My job as a mother is to protect my child. I am told by social workers and doctors that I can’t. I am told that at 16 she understands all the risks of this irreversible medical intervention and the consequences for the rest of her life.”

The mother added that she was “bereft and I am frightened for her. The only way left I have to try and keep her safe is by asking the courts to help. If doctors and social workers won’t take the lack of evidence seriously then I am asking the court to step in and protect my child.
“I am asking the court to agree that this kind of medical intervention is so serious and so lacking in any credible evidence base, that the court must have oversight and control”.

😢😢😢😢😢😢

This is heartbreaking on a scale that is almost unfathomable. This mum has so much to fight for and from everything I've read, she's doing an incredible job. The world just isn't listening fast enough.

I have a horrible feeling that she's going to lose, because she's ahead of the curve on where the NHS and the public discourse have got to so far. The recognition that puberty blockers are unevidenced science is welcome but the critical thinking just isn't there yet on cross sex hormones. We haven't hit the tipping point where enough people are asking "WTAF?"

I really hope I'm wrong. Regardless, in her shoes I would fight just as she is doing. If she loses, she'll know that she did everything she could have done, despite the failings of all those who should have known better about what a child needs to keep them safe and healthy (NHS, social workers etc).

If she wins, it'll be a gamechanger for young people and their parents. It'll put informed consent, medical evidence, child protection and common sense front and centre, which is where it should have been all along. It's bad enough that adults are being let down in this medical scandal. It's abhorrent that it's happening to children.

Plausible outcome. It's not unusual for matters such as this to turn into Whack-a-Mole.

I'd also be apprehensive about an uptick in microdosing CSH at earlier ages as a workaround for PBs (no, it's not, but when would that prevent something like that catching one).

The important point IMO is that the government’s ban relates to puberty blockers, it does not extend to cross sex hormones. Will the ghoulish private clinics who in my view prey on confused children pivot to selling them CSH instead?