The judge in this case has effectively gagged the Mum which has stopped her from being able to defend herself.
And stopped her raking her sad face to the DM and splashing her child over the media.
I personally and other members of Mermaids have known this family for 3 years.
And? Hardly unbiased.
There have been 2 independent assessments done by psychologists who work with gender variant children, both concluded that the child was very clear about who she was and was not being coerced in any way. Mum was supportive but not directing or causing the behaviour. The independent psychiatrist that the judge quotes also stated there is no evidence that the mum caused the gender identity issues.
Psychology like all medicine is not an exact science. Because a psychologist says something is so, does not make it truth. Others in the trial stated that the mother was coaching and pushing the child.
But that didn't get into the judgement. Why weren't the only NHS centre supporting children with gender identity issues not consulted on this case?
Because the mother would not engage with the Tavistock?
The Tavistock are clear that allowing a child to express their gender identity is not a child protection issue
That's because it is not. Transing a child who is not trans most definitely is.
Why did an anonymous allegation of smoking pot that has never been proven or substantiated and is clearly malicious make it into a court judgement?
To help build a picture?
The Mum was subjected to multiple malicious anonymous referrals to social services
As the child was removed from the mother I'd suggest that perhaps they weren't that malicious...
Schools are often unable or unwilling to accept gender issues in children and yet the Mum was criticised for removing the child due to bullying
She was criticised for removing her child from any sort of oversight from those who were (rightly) concerned about the child. See also the Tavistock which she wouldn't engage with.
She has been painted as a controlling and abusive character by events being depicted in such a way that makes her entirely understandable protectiveness seem extreme.
Her protectiveness was extreme. Refusal to engage with school/Tavistock etc is not a good sign?
It wasn't. I was party to meetings that were called without the Mums knowledge or participation, the clear disbelief from the school and GP that a child can express themselves and their assertion that it was the Mum. It wasn't.
When a parent is abusing their child, they are often not involved in discussions. I imagine it is the same for Munchausen's BP.
The child knows who they are. I can only imagine the bewilderment and distress she must be feeling now having being removed in the middle of the night and placed with a father she had not seen in 3 years, who the last time she saw him he was involved in an altercation with her Mum through the car window, the car that she was in.
I'm pretty sure the judgement said J was living perfect happy with his dad who was happy to let him be who he wanted to be.
Let's be clear here. Cross gender play and expression does not constitute gender dysphoria. Kids should be allowed to play with whatever they want without any conclusions being drawn. I love sponge bob, but that doesn't make me a boy.
Completely agree.
Most children are perfectly happy with their birth gender. But some are not. This child consistently and repeatedly asserted that she was a girl.
To his mother. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of them identifying as such to school/father etc
This Mum was undermined by professionals that had no experience or understanding of gender identity issues in children, so Mum protected her child and fought for recognition of her gender expression.
No. This mum was thankfully stopped by professionals who realised that J wasn't trans, and who stopped the mother before she caused too much damage.
The judge said the mum did not follow the Tavistock recommendations. This was because she decided that her 5 year old, who was happy, outgoing and confident, should not be subjected to appointments with a mental health professional who undoubtedly would know nothing about gender issues for no reason.
The Tavistock knows nothing about gender issues? And would not know how to sensitively work with a young child? Really? You don't find it at all concerning that the mother refused to follow recommendations from the one body in this case that might actually know what they are talking about?
The judgement states in one sentence that the child was isolated and not even registered with a GP, then in another line says she was registered as a girl.
They were removed from one GP, then registered at a new one as a girl. Mother covering her tracks, another worrying symptom.
Which is it? This child was home schooled, but was part of a local network of parents and children who met regularly and socialised well. Social services stated in a report that the home schooling Mum was providing was of a high standard.
Apart from the fact she was homeschooling because the school didn't agree J was trans. And apart from the fact she was trying to teach her boy that he was a girl.
The mother has very obvious mental health issues, hopefully she will now have the space and time to get some professional help.