Good Law project have succeeded...

[Wandawomble]

goodlawproject.org/news/tavistock-success/

Reading the full text, I've never seen such emotionally manipulative language used to describe a legal decision. And that phrase 'loving parents' is nothing short of emotional blackmail for any parent unsure about this treatment.

Yes. Given the concerns about that sort pressure expressed in the judgment itself, it's bizarre. Also the words "shameful", "ugly". And "a painful and often lonely fight"? The histrionics...

Low-income households often feel compelled to buy puberty blockers from unlicensed suppliers in a manner reminiscent of backstreet abortion clinics.

No doubt this will be presented as clearing away some of the obstacles put up by the Bell decision but I see this as just creating a thicket of uncertainty.

@nauticant

What if a child has two parents and they have opposing views?

Note that this confirms what was decided in the Bell decision: a child cannot consent to these interventions. The Bell decision is under appeal of course.

good point. It seems to suggest that both parents have parental responsibility so presumably the consent of one of them would work be sufficient.

I'm not sure how an objecting parent would be able to prevent treatment if at all - it certainly would not help family unity.

Loving parents

Why has the court allowed parents to be characterised as 'loving'? Surely that is emotive and unnecessary language? What if the parents are not loving? Some parents are definitely not. What if the parents are homophobic and quite like the idea of not having a gay child? It seems to happen already, by their own admission.

How does this safeguard children who may be coerced into by their parents?

just creating a thicket of uncertainty.

Yes. The judgment has confirmed that parents can consent. But the Tavistock said in Bell that they "cannot conceive" of carrying out treatment on that basis.

We're at something of an impasse.

"There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your letter, which states that parents can consent to pubertal suspension on behalf of a child who is not capable of doing so. This is not the case for this service, as is clear from the above. Although the general law would permit parent(s) to consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer blockers on a patient without their consent. The Service Specification confirms that this is the case.

In case GLP have doctored /edited it at all, the official judgment is here www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ac-v-cd-and-ors/

Family court, so that makes a difference but not sure what. I think this ruling only appertains to the people bringing the case. The Family Courts are used to emotional language, there's bags of it

In case GLP have doctored /edited it at all, the official judgment is here

Ah, thanks - I failed to find it. (I was more worried that the Google doc would vanish or be tracked rather than be doctored - I can't see him going that far).

Family court, so that makes a difference but not sure what. I think this ruling only appertains to the people bringing the case. The Family Courts are used to emotional language, there's bags of it

Can anyone explain the scope here. It seems to some extent to be the Court arguing about whether this case has to be brought to the Court, which seems paradoxical.

The judgment is saying that parents can consent. Tavistock never denied that. They just said they wouldn't proceed on that basis.

So how have we moved forward?

All parties agreed that if I proceeded to hear this case then I was in effect bound by Bell, and that they were not seeking to argue before me that any part of it was wrong, although the Second and Third Respondents would do so in the Court of Appeal. I should be entirely clear that even if I was not in effect bound by Bell, I self-evidently
entirely agree with its analysis and conclusions having been one member of the Divisional Court. Nothing that is said below is intended to depart, to even the smallest extent, from anything that was said in Bell.

This I think clears things up for me and why there's no loud crashing of drums

@Wandawomble

So now we will see a targeted campaign to force parents into consent for their children by emotional blackmail - and the same parents will be first in the firing line when the child decides they are still unhappy.

Really good news for trans children and their families. The arrogant assumptions about 'forcing' could only be made by folk with negligible knowledge of families of trans children.

This I think clears things up for me and why there's no loud crashing of drums

I guess the point here is to confirm the point that "parents can consent", which Bell failed to address, because the Tavistock said they wouldn't do it?

But we haven't actually changed anything yet? The next thing is fox-basher demanding that the Tavistock+NHS do proceed on parental consent, despite their unwillingness?

That's the threatened legal challenge?

I have a feeling this is a bit of a non-event except for the parents and child bringing this individual case. They could have just gone to court under the provisions of the Bell case, but hey ho

I really take issue with the implication that parents who adopt a watchful writing approach are not loving

I'm not quite sure how this could work. In the KB case they discussed whether or not the case should look at treatment by parental consent and it was noted that in the response to the pre-action protocol letter the defendant said...

"Although the general law would permit parent(s) to consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer blockers on a patient without their consent."

This is why the KB case did not consider parental consent. And it makes you wonder how they could now justify treating patients under parental consent when they previously said that there was no conceivable situation where this would be appropriate!

Really good news for trans children and their families. The arrogant assumptions about 'forcing' could only be made by folk with negligible knowledge of families of trans children.

RobinMoiraWhite Did you fail to read the full findings in the case?

MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN
"My second particular concern is that of the pressure that may be placed by the children in issue upon their parents. Where a child has Gender Dysphoria and is convinced that s/he should be prescribed PBs, it is likely to be very hard for parents to refuse to consent. One does not have to be a child psychologist to appreciate the tensions that may arise within a family in this situation. I would describe this as "reverse pressure" and, although I have no evidence about it, it seems obvious that the problem could arise and the Second and Third Respondents are plainly alive to the issue."

NB The Second Respondent is the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which is home to the Gender Identity Development Service ("GIDS"), a multi-disciplinary service commissioned by NHS England in order to provide specialist assessment, consultation and care for children and young people to reduce the distress of a mismatch between their birth-assigned sex and their gender identity, referred to below as Gender Dysphoria.
The Third Respondent is University College London Hospital NHS Trust ("UCLH") which works with GIDS to provide paediatric and adolescent endocrinology services to treat patients with Gender Dysphoria.

This looks like a PR placeholder before the real battle, the appeal in the Bell case in June. For the reasons you wrote Signalbox I think in order to "win" they need to overturn the ruling that children cannot give meaningful consent to receiving puberty blockers for gender issues.

"Although the general law would permit parent(s) to consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer blockers on a patient without their consent."

This is moot now though, because the KB case establishes that under-16 patients can't consent to PBs and that presumably also means that if PB are determined to be in their best interests they can't withold consent either. So the legal battle is now to determine who, if anyone, is entitled to make that decision on their behalf.

@RobinMoiraWhite you agree with medicating children for something they imagine they are?
Ok then.
In plain sight.

This is moot now though, because the KB case establishes that under-16 patients can't consent to PBs and that presumably also means that if PB are determined to be in their best interests they can't withold consent either. So the legal battle is now to determine who, if anyone, is entitled to make that decision on their behalf.

That was something that I did, and still do, find notable about GIDS' stance.

If they truly believed these puberty blockers are a vital treatment, then they would not be bothered by a lack of consent from the child due to Gillick-incompetence. Isn't that what you'd do for any important medical treatment?

Presumably they're viewing it as not actually being a medically-necessary treatment, but an elective one. And as such the child has to elect.

Really good news for trans children and their families. The arrogant assumptions about 'forcing' could only be made by folk with negligible knowledge of families of trans children.

Professor Gary Butler (Director of GIDS), is aware of the potential pressure from family members. Do you think he is making an "arrogant assumption" or perhaps he is actually speaking from clinical experience?

From the KB determination...

"Professor Butler said that in his clinic they are careful to ensure that the force behind the decision to seek treatment comes from the young person themselves and is not a consequence of pressure upon them from others around them."

Effectively the argument is that children cannot consent but for treatment to proceed you need consent from both the parent(s) and the child. It's when you see logical holes like that that you know the court has built an edifice that will fall down at some point.

This is why they need the Bell decision to be overturned.

The arrogant assumptions about 'forcing' not being a serious concern which should be considered could only be made by folk with negligible knowledge of family dynamics and Child Protection.

I'm curious as to why the unnamed child is called XY in the judgement. Surely that would be triggering for the child and the parents to be reminded of the childs biological sex

Really good news for trans children and their families.

Really not good news. There is no such thing as trans children - only children who present with gender dysphoria who need love and support to ensure they can develop into full functioning adults, with their bodies in tact and at that point - when they are old enough to buy a pint and get a tattoo, perhaps go down this route - with intensive psychotherapy - if it is right for them.

What about the majority who if not placed onto the medicalised pathway would develop into adulthood comfortable in their sex? Never mind about lost fertility and sexual function?

This is about the needs of adults - not the needs or safeguarding of children.

Allowing parents to sterilise their children?? No obvious red flags there then. What was the saying in the Tavistock - soon there will be no gay children left. Will the parents be psychiatrically assess too?

The arrogant assumptions about 'forcing' could only be made by folk with negligible knowledge of families of trans children.

''Better a live daughter than a dead son''
''puberty blockers are life saving''
''some massively inflated suicide statistic''

I know how much manipulative BS is flung at the parents of trans identifying children.