This thread from last year has significance in the consideration of Duty of Care of the State (Social Care, Health & law) towards vulnerable children & the impact that transactivism has on Safeguading & Child Protection Frameworks.
TransgenderTrend article outlines the key issues of a very important recent case concerning children in Care:
'Parents who Socially Transitioned Two Young Children Win Court Battle'
May 14, 2019
'A High Court judge has granted permission to a local authority to withdraw care proceedings against a foster family with two young boys socially transitioned as girls. The full judgment can be seen here.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2019/30.html
The older child (“Child R”) is the couple’s own child. Now aged 13 this child was fully socially transitioned at age 7. The second child (“Child H”) is adopted and at age 6 is also fully socially transitioned. Another foster child (age unknown) who was with the family for three and a half years and left in 2007, also had gender identity issues.
Care proceedings were instigated by Lancashire County Council based on concerns from social workers about the treatment of the children with gender identity issues, along with a referral to children’s services by the school regarding concerns of fabricated and induced illness in respect of four of the children. There was also a catalogue of hospitalisations for one child. Lancashire CC subsequently sought to withdraw care proceedings, which was what this hearing was about.
The judge, in assessing further evidence from experts, concluded that there was no case to answer: the hospitalisations were the result of normal childhood accidents and parents of fostered or adopted children could be expected to seek professional help for behavioural and emotional problems in children who had suffered previous abuse and neglect.
A case involving three children with gender identity issues is unprecedented in itself, but the facts of this case raise further serious questions. It is important to analyse the information available from the court hearing because the case is likely to set a precedent in the family courts on cases involving parents who socially transition their very young children. (continues)
concludes:
We are left with the question of who selected this particular “expert” to present evidence, and to reflect on how easy it is to sweep aside all normal safeguarding and child protection concerns when the issue is ‘transgender,’ with evidence that would not stand up in any other circumstances. Likewise, behaviour from parents which would arouse suspicion in any other case, is transformed into ‘best practice’ uniquely in the case of ‘transgender children.’
Safeguarding and child protection was an issue highlighted by the Tavistock clinicians who spoke anonymously to David Bell, and was reflected, albeit in a watered-down version, in the recently published Tavistock GIDS Action Plan:
14. I recommend that the trust is unequivocal in holding the position that simply bringing a child to the service for exploration of gender dysphoria does not constitute a safeguarding issue. However, it is reasonable to acknowledge that this can often be a complex population with presentations that can require the need for further deep exploration.
One of the clinicians who resigned from the Tavistock for ethical reasons gave us this comment:
“In my experience, whenever a case got too close to child protection issues, I was just advised to step back and let the local teams take over – i.e. to offer no advice either way. We weren’t supposed to offer an opinion on whether the gender identity might be related to child protection issues, even when it very clearly was.”
This family court decision sets a dangerous precedent. There must be no area of childcare handed over to ideologues, no approach which casts aside established knowledge of child development and psychology, and no treatment of children given a free pass because in this one area we have decided that normal rules do not apply. No child should be placed outside normal safeguarding and duty of care. Put simply, this judgment creates a loophole and puts vulnerable children at risk.
www.transgendertrend.com/parents-socially-transitioned-two-young-children-win-court-battle/
threads:
Meeting today:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3586228-Important-Standing-For-Women-House-of-Lords-Meeting-today-First-Do-No-Harm-The-ethics-of-transgender-healthcare-hosted-Lord-Moonie-focus-on-the-Duty-of-Care
Discussing the implications of the case:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3583675-Foster-children-3-and-7-transitioning-Times-article
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3584443-lbc-debate-on-s-times-foster-children-article
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3582478-Judge-over-rules-social-services-concerns