Carrie Grant: I no longer have three daughters.

[MalagaNights]

Has anyone read this today?

I'm not sure what to think. They have obviously had such a terrible time with their daughters mental health needs, 2 of them are autistic and all three identify as Trans.

Carrie accepts this as part of 'who they are' which in some ways is understandable as they obviously hope this will relieve ongoing mental health difficulties.

They also have an adopted son who required security guards at home because he was so violent.

So they've obviously been through so much and just want their children to be stable and happy.

But there seems to be many unspoken questions this pattern of all 3 girls being Trans raises.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12104609/Carrie-David-Grants-soul-baring-account-parenting.html

Are we allowed to mention the Baron here.?

Carrie Grant ( have never heard of her or him or their programmes, so My reaction is exactly the same as if it was Jenny Bloggs) does seem to encounter conflict quite a lot. Her comment about her parents is interesting, she seems to want to imply they are ‘racist’ ( the worst accusation in the vocabulary atm) without really being able to date that they were/are.

As others have said, if you have three troubled children with SN, is introducing a fourth with even more extreme needs the best strategy for the other children? This on top of demanding careers which involve very unsocial hours, and where the parents are working together, so cannot stagger their personal input.

TBH, who takes a severely autistic child to an awards ceremony at Buckingham Palace? They must have known that the poor child would be terrified and unable to cope with such an extreme environment….but they went ahead. It made them ‘proud’.

I don’t believe the local authority provided three security guards. I suspect that the child has been effectively returned to the care of the State.

I think Carrie might get on quite well with Susie.

I think there is another way..

They could gently ask their questions which aren't based on a presumption that their gender identity is important. A differential diagnosis approach where they set aside gender identity and focus on other presenting factors.

An early intervention to say that it's OK to explore gender identity and it's OK not to rush to a destination/answer seems to be what they have done, from what I have read in their previous press releases.. but it has always been done from the viewpoint of gender identity being an important part of it all e.g. their "wait and see" involved telling them to think carefully about the impact of hormones on their body. This is only a part of the picture and comes with an intrinsic bias that gender identity is a fact, not a belief.

Instead, I think they could have got deeper in to understanding why their autistic girls were at odds with their own bodies, through an autism lens.

*ask their children questions

FFS. Those of us who have to fight for funding to support our children know how stretched it is. I appreciate that they presumably wanted to do everything they could to keep him at home with the family but there comes a point where the needs of the other children (to live in a home without the constant violence that would warrant security guards) outweigh the needs of keeping everyone together. I can't understand how or why the LA decided to fund this.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that LAs make seemingly strange funding decisions in individual cases - our disabled children's team funnelled literally thousands into an account for my disabled DD for activities she couldn't access because of her specific disabilities (yes, they knew this), but on the other hand weren't able to fund the therapies that would have actually been helpful for her because it was from a different funding pot with a different bureaucratic process.

I can absolutely see how it might be easier for the council to buy in external services than to provide the kind of bespoke mental health support that might be needed to address the underlying issues, as the medical aspect of addressing the underlying issues often makes the bureaucracy far more challenging as the council push the problem onto the NHS and the NHS try to push it back to social care (as they often have their own psychology support for complex cases).

Even with integrated NHS/LA teams the bureaucracy is an absolute nightmare as they have to have very specific criteria and access pathways to operate under that model. But buying in security services sits squarely with the council, so it's a much easier 'fix' to try while working on a longer-term solution.

Oh gosh I just saw the daughter in Hollyoaks she is growing facial hair and has a deep voice … it’s so very disturbing. She seemed so vulnerable when she first got the job in the soap. I remember C and D bring all over that not even letting her have her own moment without sharing their opinions in her acting work.

And they are still adamant that there is no social contagion going on?
Seriously, what are the actual statistical chances of all three children being trans?

I call bollocks.