This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/21/boy-living-life-as-girl-removed-from-mothers-care-high-court-judge
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Boy 'living life entirely as a girl' removed from mother's care by judge | Boy 'living life entirely as a girl' removed from mother's care by judge |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| A seven-year-old boy who was “living life entirely as a girl” has been removed from his mother’s care following a ruling by a high court judge. | A seven-year-old boy who was “living life entirely as a girl” has been removed from his mother’s care following a ruling by a high court judge. |
| Mr Justice Hayden said the woman had caused her son “significant emotional harm”. He said the woman had been “absolutely convinced” that the youngster “perceived himself as a girl” and was determined that he should be a girl. | |
| Detail of the case emerged on Friday in a ruling by the judge following a hearing in the family division of the high court in London. Hayden said no one involved in the case could be identified. | |
| The judge said the boy was now living with his father, who is separated from the mother. Hayden said he had analysed evidence from the boy’s parents, local authority social workers and a psychologist. | |
| He indicated that the boy’s parents had separated some years ago. The boy had stayed with his mother. | He indicated that the boy’s parents had separated some years ago. The boy had stayed with his mother. |
| Family court litigationstarted about three years ago after the father raised concerns about not having contact with his son. A lower-ranking judge authorised a wide-ranging inquiry and local authority social services staff had begun investigations. | |
| “[His mother] told me that [he] was ‘living in stealth’ by which was meant, she explained, that he was living life entirely as a girl,” said Hayden in the written ruling. | “[His mother] told me that [he] was ‘living in stealth’ by which was meant, she explained, that he was living life entirely as a girl,” said Hayden in the written ruling. |
| “He dressed, at all times, like a girl and, it transpired, had been registered at a new general practitioner’s as a girl. | |
| “I was also left in no doubt that [the mother] was absolutely convinced that [the boy] perceived himself as a girl.” | |
| Hayden said his “overwhelming impression” was that the woman “believes herself to be to fighting for [her son’s] right to express himself as a girl”. | Hayden said his “overwhelming impression” was that the woman “believes herself to be to fighting for [her son’s] right to express himself as a girl”. |
| He said the woman had told him how the boy “expressed disdain for his penis”. | He said the woman had told him how the boy “expressed disdain for his penis”. |
| The judge added: “I consider that [the mothe] has caused significant emotional harm to [her son] in her active determination that he should be a girl.” | The judge added: “I consider that [the mothe] has caused significant emotional harm to [her son] in her active determination that he should be a girl.” |
| The judge said in 2014 police requested agency checks after they received information that the boy was “possibly transgender and a victim of hate crime”. | |
| He said no further action was taken by the council’s social services department. Later in 2014, a health centre had added to a “clamour of concern”. | |
| A GP requested that a social worker should visit the family due to concerns around the boy possibly having gender identity disorder. No further action had been taken. | |
| Staff at the council’s housing department had advised that the boy’s mother had removed him from school “due to them having issues with (the boy) dressing as a girl”. | |
| They had “reported that (the boy) looked dirty, had pen marks to the legs and was dressed as a girl”. | |
| “When all this is properly analysed, it is clear that flares of concern were being sent from a whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies,” said Hayden. | |
| “Each was signalling real anxiety in respect of this child’s welfare. Whilst it is, I suppose, conceivable that these referrals were considered individually, it is impossible to draw any inference other than that they were never evaluated collectively.” | |
| He added: “This local authority has consistently failed to take appropriate intervention where there were strong grounds for believing that a child was at risk of serious emotional harm. | |
| “I propose to invite the director of children’s services to undertake a thorough review of the social work response to this case. Professional deficiencies to this extent cannot go unchecked if confidence in this local authority’s safeguarding structures is to be maintained.” | |
| He continued: “I have found it quite impossible to understand why so many concerns were disregarded so summarily.” | |
| Hayden said the council “had moved into wholesale acceptance that [the boy] should be regarded as a girl. There was no independent or supportive evidence that [the boy] identified as a girl at all, indeed there was a body of material that suggested the contrary. | |
| “The cry for investigation went unheeded.” | |
| He spoke of “naivety and professional arrogance”, adding: “Concerns were dismissed on the basis that it was the other agencies who ‘did not have a full understanding of gender non-conforming children’. In fact, it was [council staff] and senior managers whose understanding was lacking.” |