Child gender issues in the UK

[Wren]

The newspaper today reports there are 50 children a week being referred to sex gender realignment clinics, in the UK, some as young as 4, those aged 11 or over may be treated with powerful hormones to prevent them going through puberty

I find this absolutely heartbreaking and wonder how have we come to this ? in my view children shouldn’t even know about this type of thing, they are innocents being robbed of their childhood, at a time when they should be carefree, having fun, their main concern about where their next bar of chocolate is coming from

God knows what this generation will turn out like, surely life is confusing enough for them these days........


http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/doctors

 

[Warrigal]

I do think that some children know quite early on that their physical gender is in conflict with their inner thoughts. They want to live another life but are prevented from doing so and become very distressed and turn inwards. I confess however that I have never personally known such a child.

Not every child referred to a clinic will necessarily go on to gender realignment. Of the ones for whom it is deemed appropriate, it is very important to delay puberty.

 

[hollydolly]

The newspaper today reports there are 50 children a week being referred to sex gender realignment clinics, in the UK, some as young as 4, those aged 11 or over may be treated with powerful hormones to prevent them going through puberty

I find this absolutely heartbreaking and wonder how have we come to this ? in my view children shouldn’t even know about this type of thing, they are innocents being robbed of their childhood, at a time when they should be carefree, having fun, their main concern about where their next bar of chocolate is coming from

God knows what this generation will turn out like, surely life is confusing enough for them these days........


http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/doctors

I agree with you Wren...I dread to think if my parents or guardians when I was little had referred me to a sex gender clinic... because I just refused to act like a girl..I always wore trousers, always played boys games..played with my brother and his friends when I was under 11 or 12...girls games were for sissies. if anyone had said that I could become a Boy..I would have jumped at the chance..
Thank God, in those days they couldn't do it...

 

[CeeCee]

I agree Holly and Wren. I was a tomboy for many years. Wanted the same boys toys my brother got for Christmas and after not playing with my dolls, my parents got me cars, etc.

I even wanted a ***** like my brother had, thought it was much easier to pee outside.

I grew out of that phase in a few years but thank goodness my parents and the times let me stay a girl. I'm pretty open and liberal in these things but I think this is going too far.

 

[Warrigal]

I was a bit of a tomboy in the games that I liked to play. I had no time for dolls and loved adventure games and wrestling. However, I never thought I was a boy. As a teen I hated that girls were more restricted than boys and had less choices but again, while I might have wished for boys' privileges, I never thought that I was one.

It is probably the clinic's job to sort these things out before any treatment is even contemplated.

 

[Shalimar]

In my line of work it is not uncommon to deal with people experiencing such conflicts. Not all will undergo gender reassignment. Most kids have a solid perception of their "inner gender" at a very young age, and of course they worry if their bodies don't match their mindset. In my opinion, it is not about innocence/lost childhood, it is about being true to oneself. This has always

been with us, only now is it not hidden, filled with denial/shame. In my long career, I have counseled far too many families who lost loved ones to insanity or suicide, simply because they couldn't deal with societal pressures to conform either to birth gender or

heterosexual norms. I agree that for those children who are so affected, and pass the stringent psychological testing, delaying puberty offers a viable option. Make no mistake, the stats indicate that only a minute percentage of these kids change their

minds re their inner view of themselves. To ignore their cries for recognition is to effectively gag them, causing them to turn inward, predisposing them to crippling emotional pain. In time this usually leads to either behavioural issues, drug/alcohol abuse, and for all too many, suicide.

 

[Stormy]

The newspaper today reports there are 50 children a week being referred to sex gender realignment clinics, in the UK, some as young as 4, those aged 11 or over may be treated with powerful hormones to prevent them going through puberty

I find this absolutely heartbreaking and wonder how have we come to this ? in my view children shouldn’t even know about this type of thing, they are innocents being robbed of their childhood, at a time when they should be carefree, having fun, their main concern about where their next bar of chocolate is coming from

God knows what this generation will turn out like, surely life is confusing enough for them these days........

It is heartbreaking Wren and appalling that they are giving these young children harmful hormones it is robbing them of their innocence and childhood. I would never let my child be influenced like this by these people that generation will turn out like the ones promoting this nonsense and that's sad. Do the parents have any say? After puberty a child can make his own decision if he's gay and as an adult can have any operations he wants but leave the young children alone already

 

[Shalimar]

The problem with not delaying hormones is that in doing so it precludes many from achieving the outward adult appearance they desire. This is not about being gay or straight, neither are choices, who would choose an orientation which sets one up for anything from scorn/exclusion to beatings/torture/murder? Just this year, one of my clients lost a family member to

suicide. Suffice it to say this family held very strong religious views which did not look kindly on gender dysmorphia. With all the best intentions they refused to listen to the child's needs. The child, feeling pressured and ashamed, struggled mightily to repress their pain, and follow the wishes of her elders. Finally, the pain grew unbearable, and she drowned herself. She was twelve years old.

 

[RadishRose]

I also went through the tomboy phase; cap guns, cowboy hats, army "guys", etc. But I also loved my dolls, and girly toys too.

 

[Wren]

Thanks for your comments, of course there have always been girls who are Tomboys and boys who like to dress up and play with dolls, most parents would just make light of it

In my opinion it’s a rare four year old who is seriously concerned about whether he is Arthur or Martha, they wouldn’t even know about such things

 

[Butterfly]

Thanks for your comments, of course there have always been girls who are Tomboys and boys who like to dress up and play with dolls, most parents would just make light of it

In my opinion it’s a rare four year old who is seriously concerned about whether he is Arthur or Martha, they wouldn’t even know about such things

Strongly agree. I think it is ridiculous to let children that age make such a permanent life decision.

 

[Warrigal]

Strongly agree. I think it is ridiculous to let children that age make such a permanent life decision.

But they don't let children of such tender age make a permanent life decision. They advise the parents how to handle the situation with sensitivity until it becomes clearer whether or not gender realignment is advisable.

There have been cases where surgery has been done too early and then the person decides to reverse it. This does not go well.

By delaying puberty until late teens this risk is minimised and the final effect is much more natural. If transitioning to a male there is no need for major breast surgery and if to a female, the larynx and shoulders are less masculine.

 

[Wren]

Obviously Shalimar’s example is heartbreaking, I just find it hard to believe the scale of this problem, fifty children a week ?
It’s almost like the latest ‘trend’ among parents in the UK

These kids must be totally confused, they don’t take themselves to a doctor or a clinic so the parent must instil the idea in the child’s mind initially

 

[Warrigal]

Parents are very focussed on their children these days, it is true.
However, it is possible that they first talk to their GP who refers them to a child developmental psychologist.
How many are told to take the child home and stop worrying, I wonder.

 

[Butterfly]

But they don't let children of such tender age make a permanent life decision. They advise the parents how to handle the situation with sensitivity until it becomes clearer whether or not gender realignment is advisable.

There have been cases where surgery has been done too early and then the person decides to reverse it. This does not go well.

By delaying puberty until late teens this risk is minimised and the final effect is much more natural. If transitioning to a male there is no need for major breast surgery and if to a female, the larynx and shoulders are less masculine.

Well, I think a child of tender age is way to young to even express a credible preference and for parents to act on it. I'm very glad my parents were not so "focused" on me during my cowboys and Indians phase when I announced I wished I was a boy (based on my observation that the boys got to go out and get in fights and stuff and the girls had to stay home and do dishes and stuff and take care of the cabin and get carried off by bad guys). Fortunately, I outgrew that opinion.

 

[grahamg]

I agree, allowing professionals into their lives is hazardous

Well, I think a child of tender age is way to young to even express a credible preference and for parents to act on it. I'm very glad my parents were not so "focused" on me during my cowboys and Indians phase when I announced I wished I was a boy (based on my observation that the boys got to go out and get in fights and stuff and the girls had to stay home and do dishes and stuff and take care of the cabin and get carried off by bad guys). Fortunately, I outgrew that opinion.

I agree, and I hope I don't sound paranoid when I say it is hazardous or harmful to even allow professionals to peer into the minds of children in most cases.

A US lawyer called Goldwater wrote about the need for "privacy" in personal relationships, so inviting any professional in to examine your child's mind is automatically creating issues in my view, and something I'm pleased I never allowed to happen so far as my child was concerned (though she never had any doubts about herself, and her views were only briefly sought during family law proceedings).

 

[Shalimar]

But they don't let children of such tender age make a permanent life decision. They advise the parents how to handle the situation with sensitivity until it becomes clearer whether or not gender realignment is advisable.

There have been cases where surgery has been done too early and then the person decides to reverse it. This does not go well.

By delaying puberty until late teens this risk is minimised and the final effect is much more natural. If transitioning to a male there is no need for major breast surgery and if to a female, the larynx and shoulders are less masculine.

Qft.

 

[Shalimar]

I agree, and I hope I don't sound paranoid when I say it is hazardous or harmful to even allow professionals to peer into the minds of children in most cases.

A US lawyer called Goldwater wrote about the need for "privacy" in personal relationships, so inviting any professional in to examine your child's mind is automatically creating issues in my view, and something I'm pleased I never allowed to happen so far as my child was concerned (though she never had any doubts about herself, and her views were only briefly sought during family
law proceedings).

"Peer into the minds of innocent children".
Sounds ominous. I work with war traumatised refugee children, Syrian, Yazidi, etc, on a regular basis. Most suffer from severe PTSD. I think professional help is crucial in supporting them in their recovery. I don't understand why people would view mental health

professionals such as myself as dangerous? I hope there is not a perception that we are predisposed to find/create pathology in the minds of innocent children? Yes, just as any other profession, we have our bad apples, but for most of us, this is a vocation. There are very strct guidelines we must adhere to, we are not running unchecked and rampant through the lives of our clients.

 

[Shalimar]

Parents are very focussed on their children these days, it is true.
However, it is possible that they first talk to their GP who refers them to a child developmental psychologist.
How many are told to take the child home and stop worrying, I wonder.

I can't speak for the UK, but here many GP just close their ears. On average, it takes several years before the kids are referred to a CDP. Even then, multiple appointments with child/parents take place, usually over years before any decision regarding puberty occurs. More often than not, kids try out dressing/presenting themselves as their self identified gender for several years as

part of the process. Most schools are set up to support kids in this. In my experience, few parents would voluntarily go through such a protracted and stressful experience unless their child was adamant. Many people still "blame" the parents, it is a rough

road to travel for all concerned. Part of the reason for delaying the decisions in this case is to ensure that the child is truly suffering from gender dysmorphia. It would seem to me, that compared with the level of suicidality among children whose cries are unheard, the danger of a false diagnosis pales in comparison.

 

[grahamg]

Goldwater wrong then?

Grahamg wrote:
"I agree, and I hope I don't sound paranoid when I say it is hazardous or harmful to even allow professionals to peer into the minds of children in most cases.

A US lawyer called Goldwater wrote about the need for "privacy" in personal relationships, so inviting any professional in to examine your child's mind is automatically creating issues in my view, and something I'm pleased I never allowed to happen so far as my child was concerned (though she never had any doubts about herself, and her views were only briefly sought during family
law proceedings)."


Shaiimar wrote:

"Peer into the minds of innocent children".
Sounds ominous. I work with war traumatised refugee children, Syrian, Yazidi, etc, on a regular basis. Most suffer from severe PTSD. I think professional help is crucial in supporting them in their recovery. I don't understand why people would view mental health

professionals such as myself as dangerous? I hope there is not a perception that we are predisposed to find/create pathology in the minds of innocent children? Yes, just as any other profession, we have our bad apples, but for most of us, this is a vocation. There are very strct guidelines we must adhere to, we are not running unchecked and rampant through the lives of our clients.

When you professionals who you appear to wish to represent choose to quote people do you routinely add words to what others have said, AND remove the caveat they included in their comments?

As any fair minded or even reasonably literate person can see you have done both when you presented in parenthesis these words: "Peer into the minds of innocent children".

Moving on you appear to believe there is no harm in asking children anything, so long as you are professionals following rules set down for you. If that is the case then you are in conflict with the US lawyer I mentioned called Goldwater, who spoke about the need for privacy in personal relationships (he also spoke very notably about the "manifest susceptibility to manipulation and control"). If a professional trained to follow rules which are very strict etc. etc. came into your home and asked your children questions like: "Do you love your mummy?" would you feel that an intrusion in their lives I wonder?

I have not tried to assert professionals are not necessary to assess children in some circumstances, (to return to the thread topic). Furthermore I have read how difficult some found it to be granted permission to study "What children and young people can tell us about divorce and separation" (the name of a book by Julia Tugenhat). She said she was refused permission to speak to children in the UK schools she approached, but persevered and managed to interview about fifteen children, she was introduced to outside our schools system. Those worst affected by the break up of their parent's relationships tried to hide their feelings, for example by saying "I'm not bothered about my dad", but when she dug deeper she found they very much "cared about not seeing their fathers" but felt unable to say so until they could trust Tugenhat to keep their views anonymous, so they could not hurt their mothers.

 

[grahamg]

The newspaper today reports there are 50 children a week being referred to sex gender realignment clinics, in the UK, some as young as 4, those aged 11 or over may be treated with powerful hormones to prevent them going through puberty

I find this absolutely heartbreaking and wonder how have we come to this ? in my view children shouldn’t even know about this type of thing, they are innocents being robbed of their childhood, at a time when they should be carefree, having fun, their main concern about where their next bar of chocolate is coming from

God knows what this generation will turn out like, surely life is confusing enough for them these days........


http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/doctors

I managed to catch a debate in the UK parliament today where "relationship education" was being discussed, and the minister responsible was giving her address to the gathering of members of parliament.

"Relationship education" is now compulsory in UK schools (a measure introduced in the last 12 months I believe), and it was stressed how strictly enforced the "safeguarding of children" in schools from sexual harassment should be done (schools otherwise achieving high academic results would be classified as failing schools by inspectors should they transgress these rules). I couldn't believe my ears when the minister claimed the education system teaching "relationships" would result in better marriages or other types of relationships, as though such close personal human relations can be taught in schools - I remember someone once pointing out to me that you couldn't train or teach someone to love you, when I'd been struggling with things concerning my then girlfriend, who hadn't really gotten over her failed marriage two or three years earlier.

Another woman from our governing party called Maria Miller said that it was difficult for children today "deciding who to have sex with", and once again no mention of the need to perhaps love the one you chose as a partner.


No one appeared to dissent from the prevailing view that what is going on in our schools is a good thing so far as relationship training goes, and as I've said before I think it is a blessing my daughter was born and educated before all this kind of education was introduced.

 

[Shalimar]

When you professionals who you appear to wish to represent choose to quote people do you routinely add words to what others have said, AND remove the caveat they included in their comments?

As any fair minded or even reasonably literate person can see you have done both when you presented in parenthesis these words: "Peer into the minds of innocent children".

Moving on you appear to believe there is no harm in asking children anything, so long as you are professionals following rules set down for you. If that is the case then you are in conflict with the US lawyer I mentioned called Goldwater, who spoke about the need for privacy in personal relationships (he also spoke very notably about the "manifest susceptibility to manipulation and control"). If a professional trained to follow rules which are very strict etc. etc. came into your home and asked your children questions like: "Do you love your mummy?" would you feel that an intrusion in their lives I wonder?

I have not tried to assert professionals are not necessary to assess children in some circumstances, (to return to the thread topic). Furthermore I have read how difficult some found it to be granted permission to study "What children and young people can tell us about divorce and separation" (the name of a book by Julia Tugenhat). She said she was refused permission to speak to children in the UK schools she approached, but persevered and managed to interview about fifteen children, she was introduced to outside our schools system. Those worst affected by the break up of their parent's relationships tried to hide their feelings, for example by saying "I'm not bothered about my dad", but when she dug deeper she found they very much "cared about not seeing their fathers" but felt unable to say so until they could trust Tugenhat to keep their views anonymous, so they could not hurt their mothers.

Excuse me, this is not a personal attack upon your opinion, nor are you correct in your assumptions regarding why I did not include said caveat. My reason was simply brevity. I have not attempted to add words, if I have inadvertently misconstrued something in your previous post, I apologise. Also, I did not say that professionals

should have carte blanche in speaking to children. I have a strict code of professional ethics which I am legally and morally bound to observe, particularly in the case of minors. I am not familiar with Mr. Goldwater's statements, I am Canadian. We clearly have a difference of opinion, this can make for robust debate, providing neither of us take things personally. Pax, and have a nice day.

 

[grahamg]

Benefit of doubt

Grahamg wrote:"When you professionals who you appear to wish to represent choose to quote people do you routinely add words to what others have said, AND remove the caveat they included in their comments?

As any fair minded or even reasonably literate person can see you have done both when you presented in parenthesis these words: "Peer into the minds of innocent children". Moving on you appear to believe there is no harm in asking children anything, so long as you are professionals following rules set down for you. If that is the case then you are in conflict with the US lawyer I mentioned called Goldwater, who spoke about the need for privacy in personal relationships (he also spoke very notably about the "manifest susceptibility to manipulation and control").

If a professional trained to follow rules which are very strict etc. etc. came into your home and asked your children questions like: "Do you love your mummy?" would you feel that an intrusion in their lives I wonder? I have not tried to assert professionals are not necessary to assess children in some circumstances, (to return to the thread topic). Furthermore I have read how difficult some found it to be granted permission to study "What children and young people can tell us about divorce and separation" (the name of a book by Julia Tugenhat).

She said she was refused permission to speak to children in the UK schools she approached, but persevered and managed to interview about fifteen children, she was introduced to outside our schools system. Those worst affected by the break up of their parent's relationships tried to hide their feelings, for example by saying "I'm not bothered about my dad", but when she dug deeper she found they very much "cared about not seeing their fathers" but felt unable to say so until they could trust Tugenhat to keep their views anonymous, so they could not hurt their mothers.

"Shalimar wrote:"Excuse me, this is not a personal attack upon your opinion, nor are you correct in your assumptions regarding why I did not include said caveat. My reason was simply brevity. I have not attempted to add words, if I have inadvertently misconstrued something in your previous post I apologise. Also, I did not say that professionals should have carte blanche in speaking to children. I have a strict code of professional ethics which I am legally and morally bound to observe, particularly in the case of minors. I am not familiar with Mr. Goldwater's statements, I am Canadian. We clearly have a difference of opinion, this can make for robust debate, providing neither of us take things personally. Pax, and have a nice day."

My attitude towards "professionals" who advise UK courts nowadays is certainly coloured by my experience when I encountered them twenty years ago (though their predecessors helped me maintain contact with my daughter ten years earlier). However, somewhere on this forum I will have mentioned a meeting I attended at Westminster organised by our UK Conservative party where the feeling in the room against those professionals across all the disparate groups attending was so strong they were not invited to attend the meeting on the subject of proposed changes to family law (incidentally I spoke to Theresa May briefly, then present as "shadow Home secretary").In my days campaigning for fathers/parents rights I've encountered at least one professional on a site for parents/fathers who used the forum name "Solomon" (probably to indicate a level of wisdom - she suggested the famous case adjudicated by King Solomon had a flaw because the king had threatened or abused the child by proposing to cut the child in half and share it between the two women, though how else he'd have discovered the true mother otherwise, before DNA tests etc. she didn't explain).

In the short discussion I had with "Solomon" I said if I was acting as a court welfare officer and I had a father before me trying to maintain his relationship with his child I'd be tempted to give him the benefit of any doubt, so long as there is no risk of harm to the child, but in doing so I acknowledged that I might not "strictly be following the criteria of always putting the child's interests first".Recently I've encountered a few others who say they work in child protection services in the UK or at least used to do so (or at least they used to), and once again arguments you've seen me put forward here divide us, as I'm sure wont surprise you. I try to add to my suggestions of the very limited changes I'd like to see in family law that if the government thought more children would be harmed by my suggestions than helped by them that that would defeat my argument to replace the child's best interests as the sole consideration for the UK family courts in some circumstances.

In our brief discussion here I'd assumed that my follow up comment that you'd be happy having professionals interviewing (or peering/prying as I would call it) so long as they were following your strict guidelines and rules, covered a limitation as to how far they could/should go. If I sound as though I take this subject personally it is because I do.Finally I will end here by asking you a question you might struggle to answer that I once posed to the head of the court welfare service in Wales at a father's campaign meeting in Cardiff. I asked him "if he could envisage his not having contact with his own children not being in their best interests?"

His reply was that "Yes he could, if he had been abusing his children!" Unfortunately the man didn't get an easy ride after that from a few other fathers who picked up on the comment that the head of the service supposed to be protecting children could say he could envisage harming them (I hope I'm not twisting his words there). In every other way this man behaved in a thoroughly professional manner, so much so that whatever evidence he might present to a court would be bound to hold sway over the possibly disjointed ramblings of a father seeing his contact with his children removed.

 

[grahamg]

Let me have another go and try to seperate everything properly

Apologies for the above all scrunched up post, hopefully this is easier to follow (?):

"My attitude towards "professionals" who advise UK courts nowadays is certainly coloured by my experience when I encountered them twenty years ago (though their predecessors helped me maintain contact with my daughter ten years earlier).

However, somewhere on this forum I will have mentioned a meeting I attended at Westminster organised by our UK Conservative party where the feeling in the room against those professionals across all the disparate groups attending was so strong they were not invited to attend the meeting on the subject of proposed changes to family law (incidentally I spoke to Theresa May briefly, then present as "shadow Home secretary").

In my days campaigning for fathers/parents rights I've encountered at least one professional on a site for parents/fathers who used the forum name "Solomon" (probably to indicate a level of wisdom - she suggested the famous case adjudicated by King Solomon had a flaw because the king had threatened or abused the child by proposing to cut the child in half and share it between the two women, though how else he'd have discovered the true mother otherwise, before DNA tests etc. she didn't explain). In the short discussion I had with "Solomon" I said if I was acting as a court welfare officer and I had a father before me trying to maintain his relationship with his child I'd be tempted to give him the benefit of any doubt, so long as there is no risk of harm to the child, but in doing so I acknowledged that I might not "strictly be following the criteria of always putting the child's interests first".

Recently I've encountered a few others who say they work in child protection services in the UK or at least used to do so (or at least they used to), and once again arguments you've seen me put forward here divide us, as I'm sure wont surprise you. I try to add to my suggestions of the very limited changes I'd like to see in family law that if the government thought more children would be harmed by my suggestions than helped by them that that would defeat my argument to replace the child's best interests as the sole consideration for the UK family courts in some circumstances.

In our brief discussion here I'd assumed that my follow up comment that you'd be happy having professionals interviewing (or peering/prying as I would call it) so long as they were following your strict guidelines and rules, covered a limitation as to how far they could/should go. If I sound as though I take this subject personally it is because I do.

I hope you don't mind my asking you a question which I think you might struggle to answer, and it is one that I once posed to the head of the court welfare service in Wales at a father's campaign meeting in Cardiff. I asked him "if he could envisage his not having contact with his own children not being in their best interests?"

His reply was that "Yes he could, if he had been abusing his children!" Unfortunately the man didn't get an easy ride after that from a few other fathers who picked up on the comment that the head of the service supposed to be protecting children could say he could envisage harming them (I hope I'm not twisting his words there). In every other way this man behaved in a thoroughly professional manner, so much so that whatever evidence he might present to a court would be bound to hold sway over the possibly disjointed ramblings of a father seeing his contact with his children removed."

Finally here is another aspect of our debate where the good and great of the UK parliament are having their say:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...2FFE7F10/SexualHarassmentAndViolenceInSchools

This is taken from the UK parliament record "Hansard" this week, where the Children's minister Anne Milton said something about all the challenges young people faced nowadays like "who to have sex with" and she didn't say anything about the need or desirability to love the person concerned.


Anne Milton quote:
"I have not covered all the points I would have liked to address, but I just want to say that I do not consider myself to be an inbetweener — I think I am a born-again feminist. I do not think that the House of Commons is sexist; I think it just smells of boys a bit, to be honest. When I was public health Minister and I had responsibility for sexual health, what struck me more than anything when reflecting back over 40 years was how very much more complicated life is for today’s young people. Young people have to make decisions on a far more complex set of choices than I ever had to make. For me, it was just about smoking and drinking, and how much to do of both. Now it is about taking club drugs, being on the pill, using a condom to protect oneself from STIs, who to have sex with—and where and when—and the risks of going home with somebody. If we overlay that with everything that is on social media, all the pornography that is freely available, all the coercive sexual behaviour that we know goes on in schools, and sexual assault and rape in or outside the classroom, it is absolutely clear that we have much more to do to make young people more resilient and able to resist the challenges they face. There is no doubt that there is an urgency to do exactly that."​

 

[Shalimar]

I am sorry that your experience was so painful and traumatising, I can see the pain remains to this day.
Graham, you may or may not be aware of my childhood spent as a slave with all that word implies. I have mentioned it in the past. Certainly it is anathema to me to deprive any child of their rights on any level, or to advocate the separation of children from parents unless absolutely necessary. I work in the trenches, many of my clients are Syrian refugee children, suffering PTSD as a result of the horrors of war. I have lost two to suicide this year. I am certain they will not be the last.