Lying to the court to trans a child

The Supreme Court judgement has raised hopes that this is the Beginning of the End for gender identity ideology, but its roots are very deep and children are most at risk.

On April 16th 2025 the Supreme Court ruled that ‘sex’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 meant biological sex, not ‘certified’ sex via a Gender Recognition Certificate. This was an extremely significant decision and hopefully will hasten the end of ‘gender identity’ as an organising category in society. But shortly before that judgement, came another from the Family Court to remind us that ‘gender identity’ has deep roots indeed and it is children who will remain on the front line.

On 26th March 2025 judgment was handed down in O v P & Anor (No.2) [2025] EWHC 718 (Fam) This was the third judgment in proceedings involving a teenage girl who wanted to start taking testosterone.

Her mother had successfully prevented access to puberty blockers (or so she thought) but once the child was 16 she claimed a right to access hormones without her mother’s permission or knowledge. This was fully supported by the father and Guardian. Mrs Justice Judd ruled at first instance that neither the mother nor the court could have continuing oversight once the child was 16, but the mother appealed and the Court of Appeal agreed in December 2024 that there should be continuing oversight of the child’s proposed medical transition, given the uncertainty about that treatment. I have written about that judgment here.

The March 2025 judgment is very troubling. In brief, the mother learned via social media that the child AND her father had been lying to the court. Her daughter had been taking puberty blockers and/or hormones since the summer of 2023 and with the full knowledge of her father.

The mother therefore applied for the case to be restored before Mrs Justice Judd. Contrary to court orders, the father had involved Gender GP, an unregulated and offshore organisation, already subject to very serious criticism in the High Court for putting another teenager at risk of serious harm.

The father excused his behaviour by saying that the delay in being able to access treatment was ‘very detrimental’ and he was worried about his daughter’s mental health and well being.

The mother asked the court to order disclosure of her daughter’s assessment at Gender Plus, medical records from Gender GP and the name of the pharmacy which is providing the hormones. She also wanted permission to disclose information into a different claim for judicial review against the decision to regulate Gender Plus as a provider of hormones to children.

The child objected to all of the disclosure with the father’s support. The child’s previous Guardian supported disclosure of the Gender Plus report (the current Guardian was very new to the case and did not form a view).

The Judge went through the relevant law. With regard of disclosure of information, the first test is relevance. Article 8 ECHR (right of privacy) is clearly engaged but so to is Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial). Disclosure of information may be refused if it would cause significant harm to a child and the case of T (Children: Non-Disclosure) [2024] EWCA Civ 241 sets out a number of questions with which the court should engage, prior to ordering disclosure.

The Judge did not find that there was a real possibility of the child suffering significant harm if the mother saw the Gender Plus assessment. With regard to the child’s concerns about her mother’s motivations in wanting to see it the Judge commented at para 24 that she had no concern about the reasons for the mother’s interest; she was not acting as ‘activist’ but rather a concerned parent.

I have been dealing with this case over a considerable period of time, including a time when both parents represented themselves, so I have engaged directly with them. It is true that I was completely unaware of the fact that Q, with his father’s knowledge, was undergoing treatment without telling anyone, so judges, just as anyone, can be deceived. Nonetheless, I have never formed the view that the mother’s motives in this case were anything but trying to further the best interests of her child and to protect him. It is her experiences in this regard which have led her to engage in issues of transgender treatment more generally, and not the other way around.

While it is very concerning that the father was willing to lie to his child’s Guardian as well as various Judges, para 28 of the judgment is interesting and I have serious doubts that any Judge would have been prepared to say this even a year ago. Rather, the Family Court had shown itself distressingly eager to join the then over-riding mantra that the child must be ‘affirmed’ in any wish to undergo medical transition. But this time the Judge said

There is another potential advantage to Q in his mother seeing the report. The effect of hormone treatment on the developing teenager (as opposed to adults) is still the subject of debate and further research. Q’s father has attended some appointments, and I have read about some of the contributions he has made which will have been helpful. Nonetheless, it is apparent to me (not least by his stance in relation to this disclosure application) that for the most part he does not seek to challenge Q. If there are flaws or dangers in the plan, or if Q is (like many teenagers) too impatient or headstrong for his own good, the father is not likely to put his head over the parapet and be protective rather than simply supportive. The mother is.

The Judge therefore decided that the whole of the Gender Plus report should be disclosed to the mother. The court limited the information that the mother could disclose into the JR proceedings but determined it would be fair for her to inform the court in her statement that her daughter had been receiving hormone treatment for at least 18 months.

The court would make a decision about the disclosure of medical records and the prescribing pharmacy within the next two weeks and would set the matter down for trial.

Commentary

I hope that the father and child’s deception of the court and Guardian is cause for very serious concern, not simply for this Judge in this case but for all Family Court judges who have to deal with issues around medical transition of children. It highlights the continuing and unreasonable reluctance from some parents and medical practitioners to accept that medical transition of children requires careful inquiry. The courts at least have now accepted this.

The Judge was circumspect in making any comment in this judgment about the father’s behaviour, as it had not yet been adjudicated on. But her reference to being ‘deceived’ is in my view telling. The father’s behaviour is a worrying indication of just how deep the roots of gender identity ideology are; he was wedded to the ‘affirmation’ approach and even the child’s first Guardian was unquestioning in his support of hormone treatment once the child was 16, seeing no continuing role for the court in overseeing an essentially experimental and unevidenced medical intervention.

At the first hearing, the Guardian displayed no interest in questions around the child’s fertility and adult sexual function and the impact such issues would have on the reality of the child’s consent. It is notable at para 32 the Judge refers to the Gender Plus assessment making reference to sexual function following treatment.

The Supreme Court judgment may have some useful ‘trickle’ down effect by confirming that biological sex cannot be changed, but it is a judgment restricted to the operation of the Equality Act. When it comes to medical transition of children we clearly cannot relax and hope it is all over now.

There is still much work to be done. At the moment there are judicial review proceedings against the decision to register Gender Plus and proposed legal action against any ‘trial’ of puberty blockers.

The recent protests against the Supreme Court decision, showed that gender identity ideology very hard baked and will strongly resist any threats to its continued primacy. Protesters round the country waved signs threatening to kill or urinate on women. Politicians have not merely been slow to condemn this, but Maggie Chapman of the Green Party has explicitly accused the Supreme Court of ‘bigotry’.

The road will always be wide and the rain will never stop falling. We must still put our shoulders to the wheel. The Equality Act has been saved, but children remain the primary victims of an ideology that seems to strip many adults of all rationality and sense.

[