I've read the judgement. For me, these are the pertinent passages (bolding mine);
"When all this is properly analysed it is clear that flares of concern were being sent from a whole raft of multi disciplinary agencies. Each was signalling real anxiety in respect of this child's welfare. Whilst it is, I suppose, conceivable that these referrals were considered individually, it is impossible to draw any inference other than that they were never evaluated collectively. When they were drawn to the attention of Lucy Davidson, the senior social worker, who now has conduct of this case, she said in her evidence 'is it is difficult to justify some of the decision-making that took place'. That was a measured and careful response. She was not pressed further. However it does not, in my judgement, go far enough. This local authority has consistently failed to take appropriate intervention where there were strong grounds for believing that a child was at risk of serious emotional harm. I propose to invite the Director of Children's Services to undertake a thorough review of the social work response to this case. Professional deficiencies to this extent cannot go unchecked, if confidence in this Local Authority's safeguarding structures is to be maintained.
I am afraid to say that I can only describe the conclusions of the section 37 report as entirely lacking in any logical, coherent analysis. I have found it quite impossible to understand why so many concerns were disregarded so summarily. Neither the senior social worker in this case nor the lawyer who acts on the Authority's behalf have sought to advance any explanation.
Not only are the conclusions of the report irreconcilable with the core information within it but it is striking that the Local Authority had moved into wholesale acceptance that J should be regarded as a girl. Once again, I make no apology for repeating the fact that J was still only 4 years of age. The conclusions of the report speak of J by use of the feminine pronoun. There was no independent or supportive evidence that J identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary. The cry for investigation went unheeded:
23.5. The Local Authority have received a large number of referrals where concerns have been raised in relation to [J] presenting as a girl rather than concerns in relation [J]'s welfare and the care that is provided to [J]. It is evident that some agencies do not have a full understanding of gender non conforming children and have therefore contacted Children's Service, sometimes when they have not met [J]. This clearly frustrates [M] and leaves her feeling that she is unsupported, and has caused her to feel stressed and anxious. Therefore [M] mistrusts professionals which is often interpreted as that she is unwilling to engage with services. "
The two remaining passages of the conclusion make very disheartening reading indeed. They combine both naivety and professional arrogance. Concerns were dismissed on the basis that it was the other agencies who 'did not have a full understanding of gender non-conforming children'. In fact it was Ms Jenkins and her senior managers whose understanding was lacking.
23.7. In all my dealings with the family there has been no evidence of risk of harm to [J]. However the impact of ongoing disputes between parents is likely to cause a risk of emotional harm to [J] and it is hoped this will be resolved as a result of these court proceedings."
"23.8. In addition, the manner in which [J]'s gender identity is responded to by professionals could also cause emotional difficulties, as had been evidenced in research around gender non conforming children cited earlier. It appears that [M] is genuinely attempting to protect [J] from the impact of this. While there is clear evidence that [M] has on occasion declined support and challenged professionals, she is able to explain these decisions and as a parent does have a right to select the services she feels are best for her child. She has accessed support from services such as Housing Support, [Local Charity] and the Tavistock Centre, and advises that she is seeking out education provision for [J] at the present time."
As the proceedings before Judge Penna progressed there developed a prevailing orthodoxy that J identified as a girl. Though I suspect the father continued to have his doubts, he had been unable to secure contact with his son and, driven to rely on others, I think began to assume that so many professionals having accepted that J was presenting as a girl, they must be correct".
My reading of the judgement was that the transnarrative was so strong that many (especially social workers and others in similar social care roles) were either swept up in the orthodoxy, or scared to counter it. Those who did provide an alternative viewpoint were schools / teachers, and they were ignored.
This fills me with embarrassment (because I am connected with the social care professions) and fear. I can honestly see this happening and workers either drinking the mother's cool-aid, being too scared to challenge it, or simply not giving a damn.
I am so angry at the transactivists and their rule by fear. They are nasty bullies who patrol an orthodoxy that silences dissent and will ultimately hurt children. I see Mermaids have come out in support of the mother and are writing an 'open letter'. I wonder if they have even read the judgement? Hopefully, this will make them look very silly.