Private provision of puberty blockers and parental consent
Ms A is the mother of a child who believes they are the opposite sex. She and her ex-husband and disagree on whether the child should have access to medical gender treatment outside the NHS (via private prescription).
She was granted a prohibited steps order and was granted one that prevented the child from receiving medical treatment outside the NHS. This expires, however, when the child turns 16 years old early next year. Many children, young people and their parents can avoid the safeguards set up by the NHS by going to a private clinic in England or a telemedicine provider overseas. Ms A believes that this undermines attempts to protect children and young people from accessing life-changing and potentially irreversible treatment which does not, to date, have a compelling body of evidence to support it.
The case has been in family court and so has had no publicity to date. However, Ms A has been granted leave to appeal (essentially to extend the order past age 16) Ms A argues that cross sex hormones should not be provided in a private clinic or where there is a disagreement between parents, unless there has been authorisation by the Court.
One of the reasons the judge stated in the Order granting permission to appeal was:
‘There is a compelling reason for an appeal to be heard, in particular as to whether a court could, or ever should, override the decision of a young person who is over 16 and has capacity to consent to treatment which is being offered by a treating doctor in the UK in circumstances where the treatment which is being offered privately, whilst not lifesaving or sustaining, is irreversible, highly controversial and could not be provided in accordance with some of the recommendations contained in the Cass Review.’
Judgment being appealed is here.
Status
The Court allowed the appeal with no further orders in place and said the child needed to undergo a six month assessment with Gender Plus. The likely practical consequences are that once the assessment is completed, if hormone treatment is recommended, the parties may well be back in court. The parents are unlikely to agree and therefore judicial scrutiny will be required.
Live tweet threads
12 December 2024 - Morning Part One, Morning Part Two, Afternoon Part One, Afternoon Part Two
Abbreviations
A - Mrs A
AB - Mrs A's Barrister, Jeremy Hyam KC
R - respondent (father)
RB - respondents barrister, Deirdre Fottrell, KC
F - Father
Q - the child
QB - Q’s barrister, Allison Munroe, KC
J1, J2, J3 - Judges: Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls; Sir Andrew MacFarlane, President of the Family Division; Lady Justice King
Press
Here are links to a selection of relevant press coverage about this case. These links are included without comment and are not endorsed by Tribunal Tweets. This is a sample of coverage only, with most recent first - it is not comprehensive. Please DM our main Twitter account to submit coverage from an established news outlet. Any paywalled article must be archived.
12 December 2024
The Times - Mother appeals High Court ruling on transgender child’s cross-sex treatment
15 May 2024
Transgender Trend - Court refuses to treat provision of cross-sex hormones to child over 16 as an exceptional case