A mother trying to stop her teenage daughter from being given cross-sex hormones to change her gender has won her battle to keep the courts involved in the case.
The Court of Appeal ruled that it was “appropriate” for it to “monitor” the case at a time of rapid change in gender services and regulation.
It states that a 16-year-old has the capacity and competence to consent to taking hormones that promote male physical characteristics. But he added that in the future, the court may need to decide whether it is in their best interest.
Between the ages of 16 and 18, while not legally an adult, a young person is generally considered competent to make their own medical decisions.
Cross-sex hormone therapy is used to help people transition to a different sex than they were born.
Passing sentence, the Master of the Rules, Sir Geoffrey Voss, acknowledged the possible distress and disruption the ongoing legal proceedings would cause the young man, but said he hoped he would “realise soon that We have already decided nothing”.
The young man, who is currently undergoing evaluation at a private sex clinic, was known in court as “Q”. None of the family members could be identified for legal reasons.
In a statement, the mother said the past two years had been “painful, exhausting and terrifying” and that the decision gave her hope for her child’s future.
His lawyer, Paul Konrath, called it a “significant order”, saying, “It can no longer be assumed that just because a young person is 16, intelligent and in good health that his cross-sex hormones The decision to move forward is final.”
It’s the latest twist in a complicated and long-running case. A teenage girl was born and wants to be a man. Cross-sex hormone treatment will allow them to develop male physical characteristics such as a deeper voice and facial hair. The parents are acrimoniously divorced, and the father supports the young man in his desire for private sex-change therapy.
The mother has used crowdfunding to pay for a two-year legal battle against him. His case was dismissed by a lower court in April, which would have ended his involvement in the rulings.
The mother’s appeal was heard by a three-judge panel, chaired by Sir Voss, and including the president of the Family Courts, Sir Andrew MacFarlane, and Lady Justice King. For public interest in the case, the one-day hearing on December 11 was telecast live.
Today’s judgment said that because there was no consensus among parents on the matter, it would be better to keep the proceedings alive because “there is considerable uncertainty as to what is fair and proper in this area”.
He concluded that the judge in the first case “did not give sufficient weight to the possibility of real disagreement in the future, the rapidly changing regulatory environment, and the fact that the services provided by private hormone clinics are already somewhat Seen in a different position. Services provided by the NHS”.
A Cass review published in April this year found there was a lack of research and “weak evidence” for clinical interventions in gender care. As a result, NHS England Wrote to all NHS gender clinics “Extreme caution” should be exercised before prescribing cross-sex hormones to anyone under 18.
Cass also provided the blueprint for a major overhaul of services run by the NHS, with new multidisciplinary clinics being established. One of the recommendations was that a national multidisciplinary team (MDT) discuss each case considered for medical treatment. The court questioned how this would be possible for a private clinic.
There is a privately run sex hormone clinic in the UK, Gender Plus. It has just been rated outstanding after its first inspection by the regulator, the Care Quality Commission.
A separate branch of the clinic does the diagnosis. The young man undergoes six months of interviews with the team before recommendations are made on whether he should be referred to a hormone clinic.
Dr. Aidan Kelly, a clinical psychologist and director of GenderPlus, said that while he could not comment on specific cases, all young people who were assessed as suitable for gender-affirming hormones were given medical attention. A panel of experts who are not treating them should consider it.
While the clinic cannot access the NHS national panel, it said it has created its own.
“The MDT, which includes an independent child and adolescent psychiatrist, should review all referrals before being accepted on the hormone pathway,” she said.
The court adjourned Q’s case saying that he would be allowed to rejoin if required.