The first alarm bells rung for me when this court case was heard. Lancashire County Council tried to withdraw the case but the foster parents involved insisted it went ahead. The parents argued a public airing was the only way to to remove any slur on their reputation. I am grateful for their stance because it has allowed us to see the arguments played out in public.

Here is a link to the source for the legal judgement and a PDF copy.

Foster Parents and GIDS

Lancashire County Council v TP & Ors(Permission to Withdraw Care Proceedings) [2019] EWFC 30 (09 May 2019)

It’s a complex judgement involving multiple interested parties; hence the number of legal representatives. The concerns centre on two of the children, one biological and one fostered, though wider issues were raised about the other 3 foster children in the family. The case raises concerns in respect of medical diagnoses, hospital visits and the role of the parents. I will, however, only focus on the issue of Gender Dysphoria. The extract below gives a flavour of the concerns raised:

Notwithstanding the judgement, which found in the parents favour, some witnesses expressed concern about the precipitate nature of the social transition of the two male children. Identified only as H & R, one is a biological child and another a foster child. So, they  not biologically related. Already, by age 7, R is socially transitioned and has had a formal name change. H was socially transitioned at age 4.  The parents are confident  this is a permanent state of affairs. 👇

Furthermore, the court case reveals, the couple had an earlier foster placement who also had “Gender Identity” issues. The case notes that a number of the foster children had development or health issues. In the interests of balance it is important to remember these children had been removed from parental homes and suffered neglect / abuse prior to their arrival in this family setting.

One of the concerns was raised by an anonymous party who is described as a member of the extended family. The Local Authority received this referral which expressed concern about three members of the same family, presenting with Gender Dysphoria. Only two of the children remain in the care of this family and it is not clear whether the previous child had been treated, medically or otherwise, for their gender Identity issues.

It is also noted that contact had been made with the Tavistock (the U.Ks main Gender Identity Development Service) who had, in turn, referred them to Mermaids for additional support. Below are details of another case which sheds further light on the role of the judiciary in these complex cases.

The case of J (A Minor)

Mermaids is a UK charity who campaign on the issue of “transkids” and provide networking /support for parents and their children. It is worth noting that Mermaids also appeared in an earlier judgement, which they hotly contested. There were a number of similiarity in that case and the Judge, in that case made a series of criticisms about the parent, the Local Authority and the social workers involved in the case. In that case the mother lost custody of her male child. I include a transcript and some excerpts from that case below.

J (A Minor), Re [2016] EWHC 2430 (Fam) (21 October 2016)

Here is a sample of the judges criticisms in that case.  These concerns were not negligible.  Failure in safeguarding, naivety and professional arrogance. 👇 Damning! 

Below is an ipso ruling over a complaint, from Mermaids, about press coverage of the above case. This is also worth reading.

Mermaids v The Times

The Times made a number of points and one of them was based on a facebook post made by Mermaids. In the post they expressed outrage the judge was alleged to have ordered the parents to cease engagement with the charity. Below are two excerpts from the Ipso ruling. Not the clean bill of health they may have been hoping for…😳

Back to the Lancashire case. 

The court heard from a previous report, echoing that of Lisa North, who described the parents (CP & TP) as “highly manipulative people” and expressed concern that the Gender Identity issues were the result of the parent’s behaviour and part of a pattern of seeking medical diagnoses.

Ms Sayer, quoted below assigns more benign motivations to CP’s attitude to the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis. Nevertheless she expresses concern about how they could revert to their “assigned gender” after being socially transitioned.

The court next heard from an expert in the field of Gender Dysphoria. Dr Pasterski is one of a handful of experts who appear regularly in these court cases. One of the difficulties for the judicial system is a reliance on people who work in this field and, by definition, believe that Gender Identity is innate.

Dr Pasterski is familiar to me as she made an appearance in an earlier court case. This case was of a thrice married man, with seven children, and a conviction for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life, who nevertheless manages to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. (Remember this case when people argue how difficult it is to get legal recognition. In this case a single judge overturned the decision of the Gender Recognition Panel)

You can read about that case here: 👇

Ms Jay

Here is an excerpt, from the judicial transcript in the Ms Jay case, in which the Gender Recognition Panel cast doubt on the reliability of Dr Pasterski’s evidence. 

Dr Pasterski is introduced, in the Lancashire case, with an emphasis on her 23 years of experience as a chartered psychologist and a gender identity specialist. I imagine the judge placed great weight on her testimony.  Here Dr Pasterski rubbishes well established data on the number of children who desist from a trans-identity.  She does this  using the argument that anyone who desists from a trans identity was wrongly diagnosed. De-transitioners commonly face this argument.  Despite having an actual diagnosis of “Gender Dysphoria”, from the Tavistock, it is frequently argued Keira Bell was not really “transgender”.  The same people insist any diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria  is so reliable it can be used to justify early intervention.  Both these things cannot be true.  Dr Pasterski also dismisses the idea of extensive co-morbidities in this demographic. I wish the Judge had asked for evidence of this because it contradicts all the research I have undertaken. (Something I will cover later in this series, specifically in relation to Foster Children).

During the case we also learn the family fostered a child from June 2004 to 2007 and this child also had “gender identitiy issues”. We don’t discover if this child had persisted, or where they are now, or whether they left simply due to reaching age of majority.

Dr Pasterski refrains from commenting on the third child but dismisses concerns about the likelihood of their being two (which as we know was really three) children with a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, in one family. Pasterski emphasises that the condition has a basis in neurological or biological functioning and claims she has seen multiple cases in one family. This is a claim which could have done with more interrogation. Firstly the evidence for a neurological or biological basis for an innate Gender Identity is by no means settled science. (There are numerous articles debunking this claim which I cover elsewhere on this blog but the common element seems to be the concept of neuroplasticity.) Secondly it seems important to note that these three children were not biologically related all they have in common is the environment in which they are being brought up.

So, what prompted the School to make a referral to Children’s Services? There were concerns of fabricated and induced illness in respect of four children in the care of CP and TP and a reported concern about a casual reference to “here’s another one for the Tavistock” by TP.

In the final analysis the judgement determined that the children should remain in the care of these foster parents. A successful defence was mounted in relation to the hospital visits. These, it was argued, could be attributed to hyper vigilance, especially because at least one child had pre-existing conditions. The other incidents were designated as not more than a normal rates of accidents. Gender Identity experts dismissed concerns about why there would be two ( in reality there were three) foster placements who developed Gender Identity Issues.

This court case has been covered many times before, hence I have not, previously, included it on my blog. I cover it now because it will form part one of a series on “Looked After Children”. I will be looking at research based on GIDs data. I will also look at British Columbia (Canada). I will also cover published guidance given to foster carers. Since I indicated I would be covering this, my in-box is filling up with useful research and first hand accounts. I am being sent replies indicating this is a problem in Brazil, Australia and the United States and that it is a particular issue in indigenous communities.

My content remains open and free but if you can support me it would be appreciated. Please only do so if you can afford and don’t choose me over legal cases if funds are in short supply when divvying up the #WomanTax.