“Outing” and “Transphobia”: Informing a parent that her child was being “socially transitioned” by a school/college

[Steve3742]

So, I’m having a problem with my employer.

I am—or was—a Learning Support Assistant at Nottingham College, and have worked for them nearly continuously since 2006.

Last September, I was informed that a vulnerable 16-year-old autistic girl was to be socially transitioned within the college, adopting a male name and “he/him” pronouns. I was also informed that her mother had not been consulted and that this information was to be deliberately kept from her. After unsuccessfully raising my concerns with Safeguarding that withholding important information about her daughter’s health and well-being was a risk for the child, I decided to inform the mother about what was happening. As a result, I was fired.

The college’s decision to hide the social transition of a vulnerable 16-year-old girl from her mother was unlawful and violates both the Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSiE) statutory guidance and the Department for Education’s Guidance on Gender-Questioning Children. Both frameworks are informed by the evidence presented in the Cass Review, which emphasises that social transition is not a neutral act and can be harmful to a child’s welfare, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

Paragraph 208 in KCSiE states that supporting a gender questioning child “should be in partnership with the child’s parents” and clinical advice should be sought.

By engaging in this deception, the college directly breached safeguarding principles. Any collaboration between adult staff and a vulnerable child to withhold information from their parents is a clear violation of fundamental safeguarding standards. My referral to safeguarding referenced all these points but wasn’t acted upon. I raised these concerns multiple times during the disciplinary process, yet they were repeatedly dismissed.

I’m taking the college to a Tribunal for false dismissal (and am gardening to help with that, check the CJ site). But one of the objections raised against me is that I “outed” the child, with all the connotations that go with that, the abuse that gay children often face from unaccepting parents.

I don’t think the two situations are comparable. For a start, the parent already knew her child was gender-questioning, so she wasn’t “outed” in that sense. She was informed, by me, about what the college was doing, not any new information about her daughter. She was told that the college was facilitating the “social transition” of her daughter and, particularly egregiously, that the college was trying to keep this information about their activities hidden from her.

All the relevant guidance, some of which is statutory, states that she had a right to know this. That she had a right to be consulted about it. Indeed, that the college had a duty to consult with her about this. One that it not only failed in but actively tried to subvert by conspiring with a vulnerable 16 year old child to keep their activities secret from her. Conspiracies between adults and children to keep secrets from parents are a huge safeguarding red flag.

Not only this, but it can be argued that a child’s sexuality is the child’s business and, even if the college were to find out about it, they have no reason to disclose it to anyone. Even Section 28 didn’t put a duty on a school or college to inform a child’s parents that they were gay, were they to find out that they were. But the guidance quoted above does include a duty to consult with a child’s parents about their “social transition”, for good reason. “Social transition” involves the school or college making significant changes to the way it operates. Names must be changed, wrong-sex pronouns must be used by staff and students, decisions need to be taken about what punishments, if any, should be meted out to dissenters, and so on. Certainly, this is not a secret – all the child’s fellow students and all the staff in the class will know about it. It cannot be claimed, therefore, that this should be kept from the child’s parents in the name of privacy or confidentiality – such things do not exist for social transition, the nature of it requires widespread dissemination. It is instead, as I’ve already said, a conspiracy – a group of people working together to do something, and to keep their activity hidden from other people.

Nothing comparable could be said about gay children, even in the days of Section 28. This is not the same thing.

What do you all think?

Reading the crowdfunder, he followed proper channels and that would have been the point at which he would have been given further safeguarding reasoning as to why the mother should not know. "There are concerns that the mother may harm the child if this is disclosed" being one. Wouldn't need to know more details.

But that's by the by; social transition is not a neutral act as described by Cass which KCSIE references. The college took it upon themselves to make a medical decision with the child. (Hence why not comparable to being gay)

The college is not qualified to do this.

Yeah that's why there's specific guidance if you think your organisation is posing a risk on how to escalate it and whistleblow if necessary. All guidance OP has ignored

He followed the guidance, it didn't allay his concerns, you can't just give up at that point, if the concerns remain you do something about it, if you don't then you are failing in your duty to a child.

Where is that on the crowd funder? I don't see it. Perhaps if OP followed the proper channels he could actually detail them? I disagree a random LSA would necessarily be updated on the child's confidential information relating to any risk in their home. He isn't in the safeguarding team, he raised a concern and the college has a dedicated team to follow it up. If he was concerned they were acting incorrectly he could raise his concerns to senior leadership or local authority, who have dedicated staff to follow it up. You aren't entitled to be informed of everything just because you raise a concern. If OP thinks he has a right to be told "this child is at risk of being harmed by their mother" otherwise he has a right to act of his own accord, that's exactly why he's been fired.

No he didn't. He said he mentioned it to the safeguarding team. He doesn't mention escalating to senior leadership and / or the local authority safeguarding.
OP is not a safeguarding expert, he completely failed in his duty to protect that child by assuming he knew best based on no info and going completely against the safeguarding policies in place.

Where is that on the crowd funder?

He reported to safeguarding

he completely failed in his duty to protect that child

That's a stretch

Don’t you mean took it upon herself not to understand statutory safeguarding guidance. 😆

Yeah so he didn't escalate in line with kcsie if he wasn't happy with safeguarding a response then.

If you really think that school staff disclosing to parents anything about a child they personally feel should be disclosed, rather than following the guidance he keeps harping on about then he has completely failed in his duty. OP is only required to follow the guidance and escalate or whistleblow as indicated, that is his duty of care, he should never ever take action himself where he is completely unqualified to do so.

Actually, the college has no policy on this at all, other than some vague platitudes in their EDI policy. They ignored guidance, some of which is statutory. I followed it.

The mad thing about this, as Steve himself points out, is that everyone in the college knew the child was socially transitioning. It was hardly a secret, and there's a reasonable chance that the mum would eventually have found out anyway. All that Steve was doing was putting the child's mother on the same footing as everyone else. It is not at all the same as informing the mum of a private disclosure, such as the child saying they were gay or had had an abortion.

rather than following the guidance he keeps harping on about then he has completely failed in his duty. OP is only required to follow the guidance and escalate or whistleblow as indicated, that is his duty of care,

Which he did.

Explain why he and the mother are a risk to the child.

The risks for the child regarding social transition are outlined in Cass and in the guidance for gender questioning children, which I've summarised upthread.

There is only postulated risk to the child around reasoning to keep secret.

it very much sounds like senior leaders agreed to transitioning the child, so safeguarding should have also discussed the referral with them. It clearly also fell on deaf hears thereafter.

Doesn't sound like you or the college are aware of the latest guidance.

And if they were, they would have had a policy in place to follow.

Which would have been constructed around the gender questioning guidance as directed by KCSIE

Not sure about the age thing but a vulnerable 16yo girl is different to a non vulnerable 16yo girl isn't she. So surely those rules would be mooted by that fact maybe 🤷

If you followed it why don't you mention escalating your concerns to the local authority safeguarding like the guidance tells you to?

Read the guidance and read the bit around raising concerns then tell me he followed the guidance...

It's very much the same in the sense he was still "putting the mother on the same foot as everyone else" in a way that was completely out of line with his role. He didn't have a place or role within the school to do that, so it really doesn't matter whether he was disclosing a child was socially transitioning or was gay or had an abortion - he's been fired because he doesn't understand this boundary and didn't follow the guidance to raise his concerns. He had no right to decide he was entitled to be the person to "put her in the know" when he isn't qualified to make that assessment. Reading the KCSIE guidance (not very well since he didn't follow it...) doesn't make him qualified in safeguarding to be making disclosures to parents.

Where in kcsie does it say that schools and colleges have the right to socially transition children without parental consent?

It says the opposite.

The college clearly failed to communicate effectively what proper procedures were to be followed

That's on them. He shouldn't loose his job for their failures.

He had no right to decide he was entitled to be the person to "put her in the know" when he isn't qualified to make that assessment.

The college aren't qualified to make an assessment to socially transition a child without professional and parental involvement. The mother has parental responsibility, not the college.

IMO telling the mother of the unlawful actions of the college, regarding a matter concerning the welfare of her child is a bona fide act of whistleblowing.

Which is what he did.

A whistleblower can, depart from any policy or procedure they regard as unreasonable, unlawful, or places a person at risk of harm.

And they can blow the whistle to whomsoever they consider appropriate.

That vulnerable child is at risk but it isn’t from the parents.

I am as GC as they come but you have no idea of that child’s specific background circumstances and whether that child had more issues going on that you didn’t know about. Unless you were the DSL, you should not have done this. By all means, complain, raise with head, governors etc, that the child’s parents should be told, but I think you should absolutely be fired for doing something you were explicitly told not to do.

I don't know if this legally makes a difference I am wondering OP:
Were you personally asked to lie to the parent and said no, this is counter to safeguarding I can't do that. Or did you not normally have reason to interact with the parent and just looked up their contact details and called them in a whistleblowing kind of context?

doesn't make him qualified in safeguarding to be making disclosures to parents.

So it was a safeguarding disclosure then?

What's the reasoning to not share with parents?

If you're not sharing a disclosure with parents you should be calling social services/ police instead. As in the case of FGM disclosure. Immediately phone police.

There's no reasoning behind keeping a disclosure a secret.

It puts staff and the child at risk

Exactly and safeguarding is everyone's responsibility.