Mum of trans teenager sues regulator for approving private trans clinic for children despite NHS crackdown

The clinic was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly, a clinical psychologist who worked at the Tavistock for five years and it employs a number of former Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) staff members.

However, the decision will now be reviewed in the High Court after the judge granted permission for judicial review in a case brought by Susan Evans, a Tavistock whistleblower and the mother of a 15-year-old who is currently seeking private trans treatment.

Evans told the Sunday Telegraph: "My concern is that this area of mental health work has been politicised and operates outside of the normal framework of good clinical practice.

"The CQC has now approved a private clinic that will pursue experimental hormone treatments on young people who are still developing and maturing. Gender Plus clinic is operated by some of the staff who worked for the now-discredited GIDS at the Tavistock and they have publicly disagreed with the Cass review findings.

"Hormones are a powerful intervention, potentially harmful, which interfere with the body’s natural development.

"Teenagers cannot give informed consent to a physical treatment which lacks an evidence base and has long-term, sometimes irreversible, physical consequences."

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Terrifying blaze engulfs town centre as over 100 firefighters tackle 'absolutely devastating' inferno
• Starmer becomes first PM since Churchill to mark Armistice Day in France
• Black students across US receive abhorrent racist texts telling them to 'pick cotton' as FBI launches probe

Dr Hilary Cass made 32 recommendations, including calling for the "unhurried" care of those under 25 who think they may be transgender and an end to the prescribing of hormones to under-18s.

The report was met with some backlash from transgender support charity Mermaids, who said that they were "deeply frustrated with the lack of clarity throughout the report."

Following the publication, the previous Conservative Government banned the use of puberty blockers on under-18s and confirmed that cross-sex hormones would only be provided where "strict eligibility and readiness" criteria had been fulfilled, including sign-off by a multidisciplinary team.

While Gender Plus does not prescribe drugs to suppress puberty, it uses GnRH medication, also known as puberty blockers "as part of a gender-affirming hormone pathway to patients aged 16 years and above."

The clinic says that the Health Secretary confirmed that this was allowed.

Justice Foxton ruled on Friday that a judicial review could go ahead, noting that it should look at "whether there was sufficient evidential basis for the decision and the rationality of the [CQC’s] decision."

The CQC said that it could not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.

Dr Kelly has previously said: "Gender Plus is already working in line with much of what is described in the Cass Review."

On the judicial review, a spokesman for Gender Plus said: "In line with NHSE policy, for a young person to be accepted into the hormone pathway at GPHC, they must first pass through a multidisciplinary team review."

The spokesperson continued: "This includes an independent consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, in addition to other mental health and paediatric specialists not directly involved in the formation of the individual’s care plan.

"Successful CQC registration has meant that Gender Plus and GPHC offer a pathway to safe effective healthcare for transgender young people under-18 years of age in the UK, which is in line with current NHSE policy and international best practice.

"This is at a time when access to this essential care on the NHS is extremely limited. Indeed, a recent FOI demonstrates that NHSE’s Children & Young People’s gender pathway saw only eight new patients for assessment between January 2023 and July 2024. In contrast, during the same time period, Gender Plus saw 388 new young people.

"Like any other patient population, transgender young people deserve access to timely compassionate regulated healthcare. Without access to regulated services, those under 18 years of age and their families will be forced to seek out medically unsafe and unregulated means of accessing the healthcare they need. This would present a significant safeguarding risk."