Children cannot independently make decisions regarding gender reassignment treatment, as senior judges have ruled, asserting the essential role of parents in the process, as reported by The Times.
The Court of Appeal’s decision has sparked hope for the mother of a 16-year-old, who expressed optimism for her daughter’s future following the ruling. The judges determined that decisions about potential future treatment, including cross-sex hormone therapy, should be reviewed by a judge, particularly in the context of parental involvement.
The case involved a dispute between the teenager and the child’s father, who argued that the decision on cross-sex hormone treatment should be left to the child. The Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned a previous High Court decision, which had rejected the mother’s position that judicial and parental oversight should be part of the process.
The case highlighted the contrasting views of the parents: the father, referred to as P, supported the child’s desire for gender-affirming treatment, while the mother sought legal protection for her daughter. The appeal came shortly after the government’s announcement of an indefinite ban on puberty blockers for children seeking to change gender, citing safety concerns. However, the ruling did not extend to cross-sex hormone treatment, which was the focus of the case.
Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, who authored the judgment, clarified that the court was not making a decision on the merits of the hormone treatment but was only ensuring that a judicial review would be possible in the future if necessary. He acknowledged that the teenager, known as Q, might be disappointed by the ruling, but emphasised that it was important to allow all circumstances to be considered to determine what was in the young person’s best interests.
Supporters of increased scrutiny over gender treatments for children welcomed the ruling. Stephanie Davies-Arai from the group Transgender Trend praised the decision, calling it a protective measure for vulnerable children. She added that it gave hope to parents who might be cautious about medical interventions and reassured those who felt more time was needed before making irreversible decisions.
The mother, in her statement, reflected on the long journey ahead, noting that the case was a step toward ensuring children are safe and supported in their identity development. She expressed hope that in the future, children would be encouraged to feel comfortable in their own bodies and understand that they are perfect as they are.
Paul Conrathe, the solicitor representing the mother, highlighted the significance of the ruling, emphasising that the decision affirmed the necessity of judicial oversight for minors, regardless of their age or perceived maturity. Conrathe described the ruling as a critical legal development, particularly regarding cases where private gender treatment providers may not adhere to the guidelines set out by the Cass review. The review, published earlier this year, raised concerns about undue pressure on children from private clinics offering gender treatments.
The mother plans to return to the High Court to seek further protection for her child from pursuing irreversible hormonal treatments.
