The father of a transgender teenager should be allowed to challenge the policy of a Hove-based health partnership which he claims allowed for “negligent and unlawful” gender hormone treatment, the High Court has been told.
The father, known only as ATN, is seeking to proceed with legal action against the Wellbn Partnership, a private partnership which provides NHS services, including transgender healthcare, to around 25,000 patients across Sussex and the UK, with two surgeries in Hove and one in Portslade.
Lawyers for ATN told a hearing on Wednesday his child, known only as ATT, was provided with hormone treatment “without his parents’ consent and in a manner wholly inconsistent with current NHS guidelines”.
ATT is no longer treated by the partnership, but ATN is still seeking to challenge its policy of prescribing gender hormone replacement therapy (HRT), also known as gender affirming hormones (GAH), to under-18s.
Vikram Sachdeva KC, for ATN, claimed the policy went against medical guidance and therefore put it in breach of its contract to provide medical services.
While the partnership stopped prescribing HRT to under-18s in April last year, the barrister said legal challenge should proceed as the partnership has not “accepted that their prescribing practice was unlawful”.
The partnership is resisting the claim, with its lawyers telling the hearing in London that the claim should be thrown out as “academic” as it has already stopped providing gender treatment.
In the 2024 Cass Review, Baroness Hilary Cass recommended “extreme caution” in providing HRT and said there must be a “clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18”.
In March this year, the NHS paused gender-affirming hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds after a separate review found evidence did not support its continued use.
But in written submissions on Wednesday, Mr Sachdeva said that the partnership had described the block on hormone replacement therapy as a “temporary pause” on its website, and that it would otherwise prescribe the treatment to under-18s after a “baseline blood test, a single 40-minute appointment, and signing a consent form”.
He continued that the partnership’s position was “contrary to every other medical body which has set out its view” on the treatment, and that NHS England had told the partnership that it had “no lawful basis for providing NHS-funded treatment of this kind”.
The barrister told the court that it was in the public interest for the claim to proceed as the partnership’s model “results in inevitably negligent and unlawful practice” and that it was “impossible for the defendant to plausibly argue” that it had regarded NHS guidance.
Nicola Newbegin KC, for the partnership, said in written submissions that there was “no public interest in the claim proceeding”.
She said: “The defendant is no longer providing the treatment complained of (and) no longer applying the ‘policy’ complained of, and has no intention of not complying with the instructions of NHS England and/or the Sussex Integrated Care Board.”
She continued: “The question of whether and in what circumstances under-18s should be prescribed GAH is subject to ongoing debate, both within the medical profession and more broadly, in which policies and guidance are continually developing.”
In court, the barrister said that the claim was “unsustainable” and had a “total lack of merit”, and added that there were some “historic positions” on the partnership’s website.
She added that the debate on whether such treatment should be given to under-18s was “not something the court can, let alone should, seek to resolve”, and that ATT themselves were “noticeably not bringing this claim”.
Mr Justice MacDonald will hand down his ruling in writing at a later date.
So he want to stop them doing they have already stopped doing and waste court time and money….. too much time on his hands
What this GP has done can never be stopped
You mean reversed? Depends on which treatment is taken pharmaceutically. Puberty Blockers are fully reversible, for example.
Benjamin,
You’re arguing the drugs this GP surgery have given to many children cause no harm, that children can consent to adults, parents questioning the decisions made about their children are wasting peoples time, that absence of clinical evidence does not cause harm and any private enterprise can be a medical practitioner to do all of this.
Do you work at WellBN?
Nope, I didn’t argue any of that at all. I said puberty blockers are fully reversible. Trying to gaslight by lying does no-one any good.
“Fully reversible” is not a safe or honest claim. Puberty blockers do not simply press pause and then leave no trace: the Cass Review found the evidence for their safety and effectiveness in gender-distressed children was weak, NHS England stopped routine use because there is not enough evidence of clinical safety or benefit, and NICE found major uncertainty about long-term outcomes, including bone density, brain and cognitive development, psychological development, sexual development and future fertility. They also stop the normal puberty of a child’s actual sex, which is not a neutral event: puberty is when children develop adult height, bone strength, sexual function, reproductive maturity, emotional development and a more settled sense of self. In practice, blockers have often acted less like a pause button and more like the first step on a medical pathway, with many children going on to cross-sex hormones, which can bring permanent changes and fertility loss. So no, puberty blockers are not “fully reversible”; that slogan has collapsed under scrutiny. They are experimental, development-disrupting drugs given to children who cannot possibly understand the lifelong consequences.
Puberty blockers being physically fully reversible is a well-established, peer-reviewed, clinical fact, in answer to my doppleganger’s incorrect statement.
To further your comment, I’ve said this a few times, but a lack of evidence is not evidence of harm. You refer to NICE, which has no published guidance on its usage in GD. It is right, however, that the long-term effects are investigated, so strong evidence-based care can be informed.
Perhaps you are not aware that “fully reversible” in this context is pharmacological terminology with a specific meaning, ie. the drugs stop working when they are stopped.
What it does NOT mean that the effect that puberty blockers have on child development, and will continue to have into adult life, is “reversible”.
These effects are NOT reversible after the drugs have been stopped:
Males (biological boys and men)
– Physical/Anatomical Effects: Greater bone density loss (higher risk vs females); smaller adult height potential; underdeveloped penis/testicles; minimal voice deepening/facial hair; higher fertility impairment risk.
Females (biological girls and women)
– Physical/Anatomical Effects: Bone density reduction; limited breast development/uterine growth; potential shorter height; menstrual suppression effects; fertility risks.
Both sexes: Cognitive/developmental impacts (brain maturation, executive function) with possible sex-specific differences per animal data; weak human evidence so far.
I am aware of the pharmaceutical context, yes, that is why I used the word pharmaceutically. You present side effects that have not been properly researched, which is why I also spoke about why it is right that the long-term effects are researched, so strong evidence-based care can be informed.
Being better informed on the long-term effects means people can have a more informed choice, for example, you mention underdeveloped testicles, probably not a concern for a male looking to transition, right?
`”too much time on his hands”? Did you stop to think what the hell you just typed?
This father took steps to protect their child and stop it happening again – lest we forget the last time humanity experimented on children like this – was Nazi Germany
And you think they have too much time on their hands?
Not happening though any more… says so in article – so much for Evidence based!!
Not nazi Germany either that is insulting to Jewish people who died
The damage to the children from these drugs and the mental messages from registered medical professionals has happened, and continues. That cannot be stopped.
Anyway how does anyone trust these individuals after this with their word that they’ve stopped anything?
Because the children said so? Because there’s no evidence? Because they’re a private company and not a GP surgery? Because they’re GMC registered individuals?
Most GP surgeries ARE private companies. Anyway, you don’t need to trust, because they are subjected to regular inspections, so it’s confirmed.
The “not happening any more” line is a complete dodge. It happened. A child was put on a medicalised gender pathway. The father had to go to the High Court to challenge it. The fact the policy may now have changed does not erase what was done, nor does it remove the need to find out how it was allowed to happen and make sure it cannot happen again.
And “so much for evidence based” is rich, because the whole scandal here is that children were pushed towards puberty blockers and gender medicine on the back of weak evidence, activist assumptions and adult ideology. The Cass Review exposed that. NHS England has moved away from routine puberty blocker use for precisely that reason. Children were not being protected by robust evidence. They were being failed by adults who treated distress, autism, puberty, trauma, sexuality and identity confusion as if the answer was affirmation and medication.
As for the Nazi Germany point, people can argue about whether that comparison is wise, but clutching pearls over the analogy while brushing aside experimental medicine on vulnerable children is morally grotesque. The real issue is not your offence at the wording. The real issue is that children were harmed, parents were sidelined, safeguarding was ignored, and institutions are now trying to pretend it was all fine because they have quietly changed course. That is exactly why this father is right to challenge it.
I certainly hope the JR is allowed
Good for this father. It should not take High Court action for basic safeguarding, parental involvement and evidence-based medicine to be taken seriously. This issue sits within a much wider pattern where women’s rights, children’s safeguarding and ordinary boundaries are treated as obstacles to be managed rather than duties to uphold. We need institutions to stand by women, girls, parents and vulnerable children, not hide behind ideology.
Well said! It is a shame that this safeguarding scandal (there are many more examples) has involved a High Court action brought by a parent so disgracefully let down by our institutions. And yes, this absolutely sits inside a much wider pattern. Personally, I’ve felt ground down by the number of times I’ve tried to raise safeguarding concerns about ‘gender affirming care’ and been told (and effectively shut down) on the basis that I was engaging in ‘anti-trans rhetoric’. Not exactly a ‘safeguarding first’ approach!
Good luck to the father in this case – a brave and principled challenge.
Why does a father need to drag this GP surgery into a court. Where are the GMC, NHS leadership and our local politicians. This is what failure looks like
A failure because adults who should have known better, doctors, commissioners and people like you (Benjamin) who present yourself as knowing better than everyone else blindly/‘kindly’/ignorantly jumped on the transgender ideology and vilified and shut down anyone who raised concern about what is finally being exposed as a medical scandal affecting a generation of youth. Even now that is only (vaguely) acceptable to say but how it got to this stage and exposing these wider types of issues, and the incredible amount of damage caused needs to be fully exposed for lessons to be learnt.
Benjamin, your comments are honestly horrible to read as a parent.
This father clearly believes his child was failed and instead of showing even an ounce of compassion, you’re sitting there talking about “failure” and acting like he’s the problem for taking it to court. Do you think any parent wants to end up in the High Court over their child? People do that when they feel nobody listened and they’ve run out of options.
The way you keep arguing with and dismissing the father is genuinely disturbing. It honestly makes me wonder if you’re just trolling for attention, because I struggle to believe a real parent could be this cold about another family going through something so serious.
You don’t have to agree with him, but basic decency costs nothing. This is a family dealing with something painful and life-changing, not a game for comment section point-scoring.
Maybe stop attacking the parent and start asking why concerns got serious enough to end up before a judge in the first place.
Well said Lesley.
We should all safeguard children from the harm and adult world tries to inflict on them.
Children can’t consent.
Children can consent, but to what extent is a legitimate question. Either way, it is not a clear-cut thing.
Children can consent… can you see what it is yet?
Yes, nuance. Children can consent to a variety of things; let’s remember the Fraser Guidelines, for installing items like contraceptive implants, for example.
We need to make our mind up because nuance sometimes and unflinching personal activist dogma next time. No one can keep up.
When do we do our nuance and when do we do our unthinking personal activist dogma to smash through the argument in play and obliterate everyone else’s position. The bit where we win.
I’m not keeping up, we have to know or we’ll lose our audience here. We’re doing so well and need to get this right to maintain momentum.
“Children can consent” is a massive safeguarding red flag.
Children can have views. They can assent to ordinary things. They cannot give meaningful adult consent to experimental, life-altering medical treatment that may affect fertility, sexual function, bone development and brain development.
Any adult who blurs that line is not being nuanced, they are being dangerous. Safeguarding exists because children are vulnerable, suggestible and dependent on adults to protect them from decisions they cannot possibly understand.
So yes, it is clear-cut: children do not consent their way out of adult safeguarding duties. An adult pushing that line should be nowhere near decisions about vulnerable children.
It’s not at all; it’s demonstrating you may have a lack of knowledge.
I’m going to cut through your assertion that children cannot consent to “medical treatment that may affect fertility” by referring you to the Fraser Guidelines, which are all about children being able to give consent to medical treatment that may affect fertility.
You’re letting your monkier down here! Not being very evidence-based.
Don’t Mention Fraser and Gillick!!!!
Parents will then research this topic and ask their own GPs and schools how this works in practice, make sure it’s not being abused. Make sure only registered HCPs follow GMC professional standards to personally make an assessment for one of three topics only and formally record their personal decision on why parents must be excluded. Making sure SEN diagnoses are accounted for when choosing not to communicate to parents.
They’ll then realise these specific legal assessments only for STDs, pregnancy and contraception are actually being used to eliminate all parental authority on any topic, giving any unqualified, unregulated and unmonitored adult direct access to their children.
Anyone is the council, school, charities, patient transport, WellBN. Literally anyone.
Even Benjamin, to teach their children what we believe.
Really, really just don’t Mention Fraser and Gillick.
Ever
Just don’t
Good for the father. He has one job and that’s to protect his child.
The Cass Review was clear, and if the GP ignored this evidence-based report then there should be repercussions. FAFO.
But I agree with the above poster. There should be oversight from the NHS/GMC etc.
The Cass Report was clear in that there’s a lack of high-quality, comprehensive evidence. That’s not evidence of harm, however, and I think we need to be very clear not to conflate the two. We should also be mindful that a clear pause of this kind of treatment has only happened two months ago, and this story first appeared back in 2024, so there’s a question of timelines as well.
Ben, you’re mixing your years up again. And remember to call the number on the back of your hand, people are getting worried now.
That is a very weak argument. “Lack of high-quality evidence” is not some minor technicality when you are giving children drugs that disrupt normal sexual development. It means the treatment should never have been rolled out as routine care in the first place. And it is not true that there is no evidence of harm: the concern includes bone density, fertility, sexual function, brain development and psychological outcomes, which is why the NHS stopped routine puberty blockers and the UK now has an indefinite ban for under-18 gender dysphoria prescriptions outside limited exceptions. 
The newer Nordic evidence makes the old “life-saving care” claim look even worse. A large Finnish register study found severe psychiatric problems were far more common in gender-referred young people, and particularly high after medical gender reassignment, with no clear mental-health benefit.  So no, this is not just “absence of evidence”. It is an evidence base collapsing under scrutiny, with direct signals of harm.
You’re mixing up surgical with pharmaceutical in your last paragraph, but I take your point that there is emergent research coming up that potentially suggests long-term issues, which is not established yet, and it can still be weighed up by the benefits of QoL, or mitigated by supplementary treatment.
I’m really making a call to nuance, like I usually do, particularly because things like this get people very emotional; a pragmatic, calm and reasoned thought must prevail.
Private enterprise providing NHS services? What?!? 😂
Are you aware that it also applies to, to name but a few:
Patient Transport
Pharmacies
Dentists
GP Surgeries
Mental Health
Community Services
Elective Surgery
MRI & CT Diagnostics
I think its very obvious which one of these has been prescribing your meds
The GP in question should be struck off. He/she/they is obsessed with getting children into their cult.
Is that comment just suggestive that you have no idea what gender dysphoria is beyond some shallow interpretation? Why would a GP be struck off? They’ve done nothing to warrant being struck off.
Good for him. Child safeguarding is non-negotiable and manufactured ‘Gillick consent’ most certainly does not have Mrs Gillick’s consent. The serpant motif on the window reminds me of Adam and Eve. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ Not very reassuring.
That is an ECG waveform… 🤦🏿
Yes Ben. That’s what patient transport tell their special customers, makes it easier to pick them up to take them home.
You continue to say bizarre things.
I am Benjamin
You know everyone’s icon, even if they look the same, is unique?
Yes, Benjamin is a long standing troll.
A long-standing contrarian to low-quality arguments, with an established fanbase, apparently. There are a lot of low-quality arguments.
Yes. Biology is an undisputed fact, arguing sex can be changed is the low quality argument. No one has ever changed sex, it’s a mental illness to say it can be done.
At this point Benjamin (franks) is very obviously trolling for engagement rather than discussing the actual issue.
Every single thread somehow becomes 40 replies deep of people arguing with him personally instead of talking about the article itself. He throws out deliberately provocative one-liners like “children can consent”, “fully reversible”, “I am Benjamin”, then sits back while everyone piles in correcting him. It’s textbook attention-baiting.
And honestly, the constant replying to himself under the same name like he’s starring in his own debate panel is becoming unintentionally hilarious.
Meanwhile the actual story — whether safeguarding procedures were followed, whether parents were properly involved, whether NHS guidance was ignored, and why it reached the High Court — gets buried underneath pages of Benjamin discourse.
People should probably stop feeding it. The fastest way to end a comment-section troll is to stop making them the main character.
Dear Jamesbot, there are at least two people with the name Benjamin in this comment section. Congrats on demonstrating, once again, why LLMs are exceptionally stupid. 🤖🤖🤖
Dear Jamesbot, if we don’t dismantle the science that proves we don’t exist, we just won’t exist. We must exist. Any everyone must believe we exist. By reading our comments and agreeing with our arguments.