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.
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
(35 minutes 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 after a ruling by a high court judge.
Mr Justice Hayden said the woman had caused her son “significant emotional harm”. He said she had been “absolutely convinced” that the youngster “perceived himself as a girl” and was determined that he should be a girl.
Mr Justice Hayden said the woman had caused her son “significant emotional harm”, and he criticised local authority social services staff responsible for the youngster’s welfare.
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 woman had been “absolutely convinced” the youngster “perceived himself as a girl” and was determined that he should be a girl. He said the boy was now living with his father, who is separated from the woman. The youngster still saw his mother.
He issued an order preventing the mother from “speaking about any aspect of ‘gender dysphoria or gender identification’ in so far as these relate to (the boy)”.
Hayden said “flares of concern” had been sent from a “whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies”, and he could not understand why so many concerns had been “disregarded so summarily” by social services staff.
The judge said he was concerned that the woman might “broadcast some detail” that would identify her son. He also ruled that neither his father, nor the local authority involved in his case, should be named.
The judge said social services staff had “moved into wholesale acceptance that [the boy] should be regarded as a girl”. He said he wanted the council to undertake a review of the “social work response” to the case. A council spokesperson said bosses had already begun a review.
The judge said the boy was now living with his father. He separated from the mother some years ago and the boy lived with her. Hayden said he had analysed evidence from the boy’s parents, local authority social workers and a psychologist.
Details of the case emerged on Friday in a ruling by the judge after private hearings in the family division of the high court in London.
Family court litigation started 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 began investigations.
Hayden said no one involved in the case – including the local authority – could be identified. The judge also barred the woman from revealing specifics of the case in any media interviews. He said he was afraid that an information jigsaw could be created that might lead to the boy’s identity being revealed.
“[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.
The judge said he had analysed evidence from the boy’s parents, local authority social workers and a psychologist. He indicated the boy’s parents had separated some years ago. The boy had stayed with his mother.
“I was also left in no doubt that [the mother] was absolutely convinced that [the boy] perceived himself as a girl.”
Family court litigation had started about three years ago after the father raised concerns about not having contact with his son. A lower-ranking judge had authorised a “wide-ranging” inquiry and local authority social services staff had begun investigations.
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”.
The boy’s 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. “He dressed, at all times, like a girl and, it transpired, had been registered at a new general practitioner’s as a girl.”
He said the woman had told him how the boy “expressed disdain for his penis”. The judge added: “I consider that [the mother] has caused significant emotional harm to [her son] in her active determination that he should be a girl.”
The judge added: “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”.
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 the woman had told him that the boy “expressed disdain for his penis”. He added: “I consider that [the mother] has caused significant emotional harm to [her son] in her active determination that he should be a girl.”
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”.
Hayden said the boy had settled well in the care of his father and his father’s partner. “I have been told that [the father] and his partner were shocked when they first saw [the boy] by the extent to which he appeared to be a girl, both in appearance and in mannerism,” said the judge. “However, what is striking is how well [the boy] has settled down.”
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 was taken.
The judge added: “I have noted from reports that the boy] has become interested in Power Rangers, SpongeBob, superheroes and is constantly finding new interests … It is striking that most of [the boy’s] interests are male-oriented.
Staff at the council’s housing department advised that the boy’s mother had removed him from school “due to them having issues with [the boy] dressing as a girl”. They “reported that [the boy] looked dirty, had pen marks to the legs and was dressed as a girl”.
“I am entirely satisfied, both on the basis of the reports and [the father’s] evidence at this hearing, that he has brought no pressure on (the boy) to pursue masculine interests. [The boy’s] interests and energy are entirely self-motivated.”
“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.”
The judge 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.”
