Judge criticises social workers as boy ‘living life as girl’ removed from mother’s care

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” – and he criticised local authority social services staff responsible for the youngster’s welfare.

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.

Mr Justice Hayden said “flares of concern” had been sent from a “whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies” – and he said he could not understand why so many concerns were “disregarded so summarily” by social services staff.

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.

Detail emerged on Friday in a ruling by the judge following private hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

Mr Justice 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 which might lead to the boy’s identity being revealed could be created.

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.

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.

“(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 Mr Justice Hayden.

“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 added: “I was also left in no doubt that (the mother) was absolutely convinced that (the boy) perceived himself as a girl.”

Mr Justice 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”.

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.”

Mr Justice 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.”

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.

“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.”

Report by member of social services department made ‘very disturbing reading’

A High Court judge has criticised local authority social services staff involved with a seven-year-old boy who was “living life entirely as a girl”.

The boy has been removed from his mother’s care following rulings by Mr Justice Hayden.

Details of the case emerged on Friday in a ruling by the judge following a hearing at the Family Division of the High Court in London.

The judge said the woman had been “absolutely convinced” that 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 mother.

Mr Justice Hayden said the boy’s parents had separated some years ago.

The boy had stayed with his mother.

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.

The judge said a report produced by a member of the council’s social services department made “very disturbing reading”.

Mr Justice Hayden has not identified the boy, his parents or the council involved in the case.

He said the report showed that a number of concerns had been raised about the boy in 2013.

Staff had received a “referral” from someone who did not give a name raising concerns about the boy wearing a pink headband and nail varnish as it makes (his mother happy)” and about the boy’s mother’s mental health and irrational behaviour.

They had been informed that the NSPCC had received an anonymous call from someone who was concerned that (the mother) had “stated twice in a week that (the boy) is transgender”.

School staff had also given information to the council’s social services department.

Mr Justice Hayden said it was plain there was “widespread unease”.

“What is perhaps most striking about the information that was being drawn to this local authority’s attention is that it came from such a wide variety of sources,” said Mr Justice Hayden.

“It seems to me, in particular, that concerns from a school ie. the professionals who see the child most, should always be afforded very significant weight.”

He added: “(School staff) were reading the situation carefully and … were plainly alert both to (the boy’s) presentation and to the mother’s confrontational and inappropriate behaviour.

“I am bound to say that had their concerns been given the weight that they plainly should have, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that (the boy) could have been spared a great deal of emotional harm.”

The judge said in 2014 police were “requesting agency checks” after receiving information 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 had 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 Mr Justice 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 went on: “I have found it quite impossible to understand why so many concerns were disregarded so summarily.”

Mr Justice 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,” said the judge.

“The cry for investigation went unheeded.”

He spoke of “naivety and professional arrogance”, and added: “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.”

The council later issued a statement from a “spokesperson” which said: “We take our safeguarding responsibilities very seriously and accept the judge’s comments in relation to this case.

“There is very clear learning for the authority and other key agencies in this matter.

“We have already begun to review our practice and involvement in this case so that lessons can be learned and shared.”

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved.}