Parents kept in the dark by teachers about their 16 year old daughter’s medical transition

[rogdmum]

In this case the Head appears to have supported the parents’ wishes that their daughter’s social transition not be supported, but some teachers ignored this and even went further, keeping the daughter’s use of cross sex hormones secret:

“The couple found out how far their daughter had progressed with transitioning only after hiring lawyers to demand sight of school records. To their astonishment, the records showed some staff also knew their daughter was taking cross-sex hormones as a step towards making her body more masculine.

Subsequent disclosures showed she had also been using a chest binder to flatten her breasts, another troubling revelation the school had not shared.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c4af6f1c-1276-11ee-9673-09365d127a9f?shareToken=dcf6a82e739f6596fbb7897c6484f5a4

You cannot disclose medical information about someone without their explicit consent I'd they have capacity. Capacity is nor binary it isn't something that you magically acquire on your 16th birthday. Information sharing needs to be proportionate. Perhaps they felt by sharing this information it would negatively impact on the young person's mental health and/ or their relationship with their parents ? Do we know these were definitely prescribed before their 16th Birthday ?

Can anyone explain where the parents now stand? Can they sue the school & involved?

The problem with regulating doctors is that whether a doctor's actions are considered reasonable is based partly on whether a lot of other doctors would have done the same thing. My understanding of the Helen Webberley case was that she wasn't struck off because she could argue that she was following treatment protocols used by lots of 'expert' doctors.

If one doctor 'goes rogue', its quite easy to deal with them. When its a significant proportion of the profession, all for some incomprehensible reason believing in this nonsense, but who are running the gender clinics, writing international guidelines, and influencing the bodies that regulate doctors, it's a lot more difficult.

I would imagine that all of us here know that at 16 children have medical autonomy and records etc can’t be shared with parents without their agreement.

That is not the issue here.

The school (and presumably why the article mentions Gillick) have used Gillick for their excuse as to why they could not share the information about the child being on GP prescribed cross sex hormones - ie the child’s right to privacy.

That doesn’t cut it here.

There are serious safeguarding issues around the prescription of PBs and CSH outwith GIDS (and I’m absolutely NOT arguing for their prescribing within GIDS!). This is recognised by GIDS and the Tavistock’s own safeguarding procedures highlight access of these via third parties as a trigger for child protection reporting.

The school were aware this child had been prescribed CSH outwith the GIDS process. This should have been recognised as a safeguarding risk - at least to the point of checking if this was usual practice.

A child’s privacy can be overridden where there are safeguarding concerns - I would argue that this would apply here and that it should not have been kept secret from the parents.

There is the separate question of how a GP who was operating outwith protocols and prescribing CSH, determined Gillick, or whether they did, given the child was 16. That and whether 16 year olds can give informed consent to CSH are separate issues to a school claiming Gillick for not informing her parents about a serious safeguarding issue.

But if they thought disclosing would place the child at risk of harm (I would suggest self-harm here) then that is a valid reason for not sharing concerns with the parents.
TBF they did refer to social services.

See it's just so muddy. A clear timeliness would help. I am sure this will now be fully investigated- I am withholding judgment (except for the Dr prescribing outside NICE).

And safeguarding children explicitly extends to children over 16 if there are concerns about their ability to consent (ie SEN etc)

My apologies for assuming you were an activist. The focus on alienating children from their parents is a theme that runs through most of the material developed for schools by trans activist groups with countless politicians and activists positioning parents as trans / homophobic and children needing protection from them. In fact safeguarding legislation is clear that everyone must work in partnership with parents (even abusive ones) and that removing parental rights is an incredibly serious step that must be done through the courts.
We're past the stage of giving schools and social workers a free pass because they're good people I'm afraid (and I've taught in 4 different schools & worked with countless others). Too many schools are engaged in an untested social experiment on children that they have no training or competence in. They have shamefully breached the statutory guidance on political impartiality by allying with extreme queer theory activist groups & allowing them to influence school policy and practice in a manner that is causing psychological harm to the children involved and the remaining children compelled to validate their mental fragility.

Thank you, you said what I wanted to say.

Parental responsibility must not be usurped by school, no matter how right they think they are (or how wrong they think parents are). This was a child, because this obviously started before age 16, and one with additional needs at that.

And who will be left to deal with the fall out? Not the teachers, youth workers or whoever, who get to bask in the glow of their own righteousness in affirming this young persons true self. But the parents, trying to deal with a vulnerable young person who has been enabled in self harming behaviour by adults they all should have been able to trust.

Parental responsibility does not extend to knowing a child's full medical records if that child has been deemed competent to consent by a doctor (I've attached a photo of the relevant NHS page). Children are not wholly owned by their parents, and have a right to privacy (if they are competent to make the relevant decisions). Schools must not be overriding the medical professionals regarding competence because teachers do not have the expertise in this.

Imagine for a second we are talking about literally anything other than trans issues. If we were talking about abortion, contraceptives, sti medication, vaccines etc I really doubt many people here would be arguing that schools have a duty to inform parents that a child has received treatment from a doctor.

The problem is that doctors are prescribing treatments which are wholly unacceptable for children. Dr Cass' report helps but I think we need far stronger guidance or legislation on this so that doctors who inappropriately prescribe these drugs are stuck off immediately.

However, when it comes to non-prescribed things (eg binders) I'd argue that schools do have a responsibility to inform parents. Because they are harmful and no medical professional has deemed the child competent to make the decision. In that case schools should be deferring to parents.

Parental responsibility does not extend to knowing a child's full medical records if that child has been deemed competent to consent by a doctor (I've attached a photo of the relevant NHS page). Children are not wholly owned by their parents, and have a right to privacy (if they are competent to make the relevant decisions). Schools must not be overriding the medical professionals regarding competence because teachers do not have the expertise in this.

Again this is not about normal practice. This is not about schools generally overriding medical professionals regarding competence. This is about a GP who prescribed CSH outwith GIDS and the school were aware of this. This act was a child protection issue, even according to the spectacularly low standards of the Tavi, and the school should have treated it as such and informed the parents. To twist it into - well the GP decided the child was competent so her privacy must be respected, is completely missing the issue.

I’m struggling to believe this needs to be spelled out.

The school leadership team agreed with the parents that this vulnerable autistic child should not socially transition at school. However a small group of teachers, friends and the LGBT club covertly transitioned this girl. There was a note on her file to conceal this from the parents. The local LGBT club put the child in touch with dodgy NHS GP, not the family doctor, to dole out cross sex hormones.

That this family has the strength to go to the papers while dealing an utter nightmare, is truly a public service.

I am grateful to parents like these who are fighting back and shining a light. There are numerous cases like this one.

Imagine for a second we are talking about literally anything other than trans issues. If we were talking about abortion, contraceptives, sti medication, vaccines etc I really doubt many people here would be arguing that schools have a duty to inform parents that a child has received treatment from a doctor.

But that's not equivalent, is it? Because all of those are recognised treatments with known risks and benefits which can (potentially)be understood by the child; not unresearched uses of drugs which were never intended to be used in this way and which UK courts have said under 18s are not capable of consenting to. This is more like an anorexic getting prescribed wegovy, or an anxious over achiever being prescribed amphetamines for their exams, and school staff knowing and even facilitating that, against the express wishes of the parents and the instructions of the SLT.

I hope the parents take the individuals involved in this safeguarding failure to court.

Here’s the NHSE stance on where CSH have been prescribed outwith NHS protocols. It talks about making the child or young person and their family aware of the risks etc as well as informing the child’s GP, encouraging them to consider safeguarding protocols.

That anyone thinks the school was in the right to keep this information from this girl’s parents is madness.

Imagine some covert Jewish teacher's taking the children of two atheists along for a religious circumcision behind the parents back.

A few points:

1. schools are be experts on any medical conditions or treatments. That has to remain the responsibility of doctors. While I agree that the doctors have acted terribly I really don't think it is okay for schools or teachers to do their own research and then decide against the medical professionals. That is a really dangerous precedent.
2. I'm not saying that the teachers here acted correctly; in fact I think they were wrong about lots of things and hope those involved are held responsible for their actions
3. the courts have not said that under 18s can't consent to this particular treatment (well one court did but that was overruled so doesn't count)
4. I am concerned that the reasoning used here could easily be applied to other medical treatments, which is why I'm trying to highlight the wider picture. I'm not trying to twist things, I'm worried about schools overstepping in both directions. Medical treatments administered by medical professionals need to be left alone by schools. On all other matters the parents need to be kept informed by schools (this includes social transition, binders, etc).

Arg! Schools arent experts on any medical treatment!

Binding is classified by the Police as child abuse, teachers are ignoring this.

“Although there's no specific law within the UK around breast ironing, it's a form of child abuse.”

Note the phrase “there’s no specific law”, this is the loophole that the teaching and social services activists exploit to isolate parents. We have another thread demanding the government provide guidance to these same activists to not teach children there are more than two sexes. Considering they’re ignoring existing laws, science, language and parental trust already, I don’t hold any hope they will stop.

https://www.sussex.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/caa/child-abuse/breast-ironing-flattening/

Yes, there are schools that are happy to virtue signal parents into transing kids. I know they have facilitated name changing. Out groups have handed down binders to under 15yos, forms and scripts of how to get referred to GIDS. Then you have the adult allies suggesting pronouns, giving kids lifts to friendly GPS, etc.

I know parents whose kids are autistic and vulnerable and have to battle this army of good doers away! Those people are hook on their own ‘rightfulness’ like a drug. They say “the poor thing” and then the kid ends school and they latch onto the next one.

Parents on the other hand have to look after their distress child, now convinced they are something they are not. And how do you fight back if you have always said ‘listen to the teacher’

The state of things is unbelievable!

I think it’s a difficult one, and on the medical side here the doctors are in the wrong, not the school.

If a teacher is aware a child has been prescribed medication they shouldn’t be forced to tell the child’s parents. The doctor should be trusted to prescribe the right medication (or not prescribe at all), and of course the pharmacist has some responsibility as well. In this case it seems the latter part was the issue.

The doctor should be trusted to prescribe

But they cannot be trusted to prescribe in the case of PBs and CSHs. Tragically, many (most GPs?) will not be experts, will not be familiar with the most recent emerging research, will have already been exposed to questionable statistics and pharmaceutical claims of ‘reversible’ PBs and many NHS trusts outsourcing leadership and guidance to the likes of SW etc.

It is now an uphill battle to correct that misunderstanding and the Cass Review is only a small step. Most GPs will not have read this.

People talk as if safeguarding in schools doesn't exist. Trans activists are working hard to remove safeguarding from these groups of children and some posters unwittingly buy into it. Even stating that "Schools must not be overriding the medical professionals regarding competence because teachers do not have the expertise in this" is true BUT it depends on context. Getting puberty blockers from dodgy online sources ? How does that fit in?

Teachers are taught to share concerns about a child, not keep it a secret in case the parent is an alleged bigot of some sort. It's fundamental - don't work in isolation. Discussions about confidentiality / sharing info with parents are made after similar discussions where the law and guidance inform the decision. The principle is working in partnership with parents UNLESS there are legal / safeguarding issues that take priority.

Schools are part of a multi agency network that works to keep all children safe. Trans activist groups are trying to undermine these tried and tested ways of working. It's catastrophic for children's safety . We know how imperfect safeguarding can be but the idea that it is being eroded by activists is unthinkable - and wrong.

But the child was already vulnerable due to her autism.. If the school thought there was any chance of self harm whatsoever should parents not be put on high alert & be monitoring her as much as humanly possible.

Getting puberty blockers illegally online is the same concern as accessing any other illegal drug. Huge safeguarding red flag and needs proper intervention, far beyond the school.

If some doctors are legally but inappropriately prescribing puberty blockers online then that needs dealing with by NICE, GMC, legislation etc. Teachers and schools cannot take responsibility that - we don't have the legal power or the expertise.

Individual teachers should never keep secrets with children - everything of even the slightest concern raised with the DSL. The DSL might or might not share with parents depending on what the law requires or doesn't allow. Some teachers or DSLs have been ignoring this - and they need properly investigating / sacking.

Even if a child is thought to be at risk from parents a school still must not keep info (eg social transition) from a parent unless required to do so by the court. Schools cannot take that decision alone.

My point (overall) is that some schools and teachers appear to have been overriding parental responsibility, particularly wrt social transition. That is very wrong. It is also very wrong for a school or teacher to override a doctor in respect of the medical care of a child (including in the assessment of competence).

No one is saying schools should take responsibility for unscrupulous GPs prescribing cross sex hormones (again, this story is not about puberty blockers) or that they should override the doctor. The issue is that prescribing CSH outwith NHS protocols is a child protection issue and the parents should have been informed.

From my own personal experience, I know it is also the view of the GMC that a school should report similar issues (in my example it was PBs not CSH) to them. It’s all part of the multi-agency approach schools are part of.