Parents of 17-year-old launch High Court battle to stop teen changing gender

[IwantToRetire]

The parents of a 17-year-old have launched a High Court bid to block their child from changing gender.

They took the highly unusual move after the child forged their mother’s signature to get hormone replacement therapy on the NHS.

The teen was born a boy but identifies as a girl and is being backed in court by their GP.

The parents insist the child lacks the mental capacity to consent to the treatment.

In court papers they say no proper assessment of the teen’s mental and physical health has been done.

They also fear grave psychiatric harm if the child is allowed to continue with “an inappropriate, negligently given, life-altering treatment”.

The case is believed to be the first of its kind.

The parents are separately seeking a judicial review of the GP’s role in prescribing HRT.

The Royal College of GPs previously stated medics should not prescribe gender-affirming hormones to patients under the age of 18.

The child, who lives with their parents, started HRT last October, ahead of a referral to specialist gender services.

London’s High Court was told treatment began four weeks after the child forged their mum’s signature on a self-assessment form.

Mr Justice MacDonald said the child “emphasises the law gives her permission to make her own decision”.

The court heard the child, described as “eloquent, articulate, and sensible” instructed a solicitor and is happy and doing A-levels.

The child told the court: “I live in two opposite worlds — one in my household, where I am seen as less than, and the other outside the home where I am calm and grounded.”

Case adjourned until a later date.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35299277/parents-teenager-high-court-gender-trans/

Blimey.
Was the GP in Brighton, by any chance?

I'm interested in how a teenage instructs their own solicitor, where is he getting the money?

I cant find any other news story about this.

But suspect it is Brighton, but on the other hand if it isn't it would be another indication of just how far trans ideology has reached in the NHS.

(I saw a chart someone which i now cant find showing that Brighton has the highest number of LGBTQI+ residents.)

The use of the term HRT in these cases underplays the significance of what is being prescribed. Cross sex hormone treatment (wrong sex hormones is my preferred term) involves pumping hormones into a body that is not designed to receive them in that dose. It is done to destabilise healthy development and functioning.

Co-opting the name of a different treatment regime to make it sound less concerning is not OK!

Not just to make it sound less concerning, but to make it sound the same. "HRT is a treatment given to women whose natural oestrogen level is too low, like post menopausal women and trans women". 😡

That’s really sad.

BBC News story today about a gender gp in Brighton
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce397vzkyvdo

If a male’s oestrogen level is too low low, this is treated by adjusting testosterone levels, not be giving them oestrogen.

I am dismayed by how readily all this nonsense has been taken up as fact. Critical thinking and curiosity seem to have declined despite significant increase in the accessibility of information.

Quote: NHS Sussex said on Thursday it had launched "a rapid investigation into this activity".

Does seem quite likely - the "rapid investigation" starting as the court case does.

but am still open to the possibility that it isn't just Brighton - sadly.

Is it worth the parents fighting this? As soon as their DC turns 18 it'll be their own choice what treatment they have.

I'd fight it if my signature had been forged!

I think this must be the case https://childprotectionresource.online/gender-affirming-treatment-for-a-child-the-role-of-the-court-to-determine-disputes/

Detailed write up of the case.

And some conclusions

It is reassuring to see that the court, indeed both parties, agreed that it was necessary to have some expert medical evidence about the impact of cross sex hormones. I also agree that the court is right to warn against using the welfare of an individual child to wage war on a broader ideology. I agree that the courts cannot overstep into matters which are rightly left to Parliament or the good sense of individual doctors.

But. That doesn’t mean the wider setting of these issues can simply be ignored and this is particularly relevant with regard to the issue of capacity to consent to this treatment. The courts should have no doubt following the Cass Review and the investigations into the Tavistock, that this is a field of medical intervention with children that has itself been hijacked by ideologues. The family court remains the last defence of children who have been dangerously let down by medical and social work professions that have rushed to ‘affirm’ any child’s bare wish to ‘change sex’, despite the lack of any compelling evidence that medical interventions have a positive benefit. This is obvious from the response of the Government to banning puberty blockers and now consulting on the wisdom of providing cross sex hormones to children over 16.

I was going to say not sure who is behind this web site but on going to its X account I see it says Tweets by @SVPhillimore
.

The use of HRT when talking about trans really irritates me.

The clue is in the name - hormone replacement therapy. How can a man need hormone replacement when he's never had any oestrogen in the first place.

Because "replace" can also be used in the sense of "put in the place of". Like you can replace a broken table leg with a leg from a chair, or a caring step father can replace an absent father.

It's just the usual "oh if we can make the words work then it must be reality" bollocks but that's how they get away with it.

Of course it also shines an unintended light into how they think about people: as a bunch of swappable spare parts rather than a holistic human being.

This may sound harsh but I'm starting to think "fuck it, let them be the example others won't want to follow".

Either it'll work out great and then it was probably the right decision. Or it'll be a huge clusterfuck of regret by their early 20s and set an example of why you don't want to permanently change your body at the behest of a teenage trend. Jeez, when I think back to my teens I had no idea what I'd be like in a decade, despite being so self assured.

I'm glad I didn't get the tattoos I wanted in my teens. Yet alone irreversibly change my body!

Aren't they fighting for the principle ?

It seems absurd that a kid can just forge a signature and fo dill steam ahead.

Does this clinic not speak to parents

Yes. In Brighton. My GP.

- well not really.

But agree that assuming they can afford to do it the parents should sue.

Not only because the GP didn't take the simple precaution of phoning to see if the signature was authentic as they must have been aware that up until then the parents had objected, but also because (and i know this could be hard) even if a young person thinks they are a fully competent adult, they may just be as likely be still a young person easily swayed.

This schmaltzy quote:

“I live in two opposite worlds — one in my household, where I am seen as less than, and the other outside the home where I am calm and grounded.”

Is just a likely to be at home my thinking and arguements are challenged, but outside of the home everyone tells me I am wonderful for following my dream.

Yes that quote stood out because grounded and calm isn't the opposite of 'less than'. They are completely different kinds of things. On is how others treat you, the other is how you feel and behave.