Re L and B (CHILDREN) - Revision history

WikiModEn2: Wikify.

2025-09-28T18:46:20Z

Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 28 September 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|date=2015-04-05		\|date=2015-04-05
	\|accessdate=2020-12-28		\|accessdate=2020-12-28
	}}</ref> This case is significant because the Court required that [[circumcision]] be deferred until the boys are mature enough to decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their [[genital autonomy]] and right to [[physical integrity]] were protected.		}}</ref> This case is significant because the Court required that [[circumcision]] be deferred until the boys are mature enough to decide for themselves if they wish to be [[circumcised]]. Their [[genital autonomy]] and right to [[physical integrity]] were protected.

	The children in this case are two boys, aged 6 and 4. They have a 34-year-old English mother and a 36-year-old Algerian Muslim father. The parental relationship has broken down. This case addresses the arrangement for the care of the two boys.		The children in this case are two boys, aged 6 and 4. They have a 34-year-old English mother and a 36-year-old Algerian Muslim father. The parental relationship has broken down. This case addresses the arrangement for the care of the two boys.

	Non-therapeutic ritual [[circumcision]] of the two boys is a major issue in this case, because the father wants to take the boys to Algeria to be circumcised in accordance with Islamic tradition. The mother, on the other hand, wants to defer any circumcision until the boys can decide for themselves.		Non-therapeutic ritual [[circumcision]] of the two boys is a major issue in this case, because the father wants to take the boys to Algeria to be [[circumcised]] in accordance with Islamic tradition. The mother, on the other hand, wants to defer any [[circumcision]] until the boys can decide for themselves.

	The Court heard testimony on the medical and religious aspects of non-therapeutic child circumcision.		The Court heard testimony on the medical and religious aspects of non-therapeutic child circumcision.
Line 21:		Line 21:
	The Court recognized that Algeria is not a state-party to the [https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=69 Hague Convention on Protection of Children (1993)] and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention). For this and other reasons the Court denied permission to travel outside of England and Wales.<ref name="roberts2016" />		The Court recognized that Algeria is not a state-party to the [https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=69 Hague Convention on Protection of Children (1993)] and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention). For this and other reasons the Court denied permission to travel outside of England and Wales.<ref name="roberts2016" />

	After hearing evidence, the Court concluded that lack of circumcision would not prevent the boys from participating in Islamic-oriented activities with their father.		After hearing evidence, the Court concluded that lack of [[circumcision]] would not prevent the boys from participating in Islamic-oriented activities with their father.

	The mother’s position on circumcision was:		The mother’s position on circumcision was:
Line 32:		Line 32:
	It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.		It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.

	Taking all these matters into account, my conclusion is that it would be better for the children that the court make no order at this stage in relation to circumcision than to make the order which the father seeks. I am not dismissing his application on the basis that they must develop into adulthood as [[uncircumcised]] Muslim males. I am simply deferring that decision to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term effects of the decisions which they reach. Part of that consideration will be any increase in the risks of surgery by the time they have reached puberty. I do not regard the delay between now and that point in time significantly to increase those risks. The safest point in time to have carried out the procedure, according to Mr Muir, has long since passed.<ref name="roberts2016" />		Taking all these matters into account, my conclusion is that it would be better for the children that the court make no order at this stage in relation to circumcision than to make the order which the father seeks. I am not dismissing his application on the basis that they must develop into adulthood as [[uncircumcised]] Muslim males. I am simply deferring that decision to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term effects of the decisions which they reach. Part of that consideration will be any increase in the risks of surgery by the time they have reached [[puberty]]. I do not regard the delay between now and that point in time significantly to increase those risks. The safest point in time to have carried out the procedure, according to Mr Muir, has long since passed.<ref name="roberts2016" />
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

WikiModEn2: Add SEEALSO section.

2024-05-20T22:10:10Z

Add SEEALSO section.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 20 May 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:

	This British court reached a similar to conclusion to that of the German Court at Cologne in the celebrated [[Cologne circumcision court judgment\|German circumcision case]] of 2012.<ref>LG Köln, 07.05.2012 - 151 Ns 169/11.</ref>		This British court reached a similar to conclusion to that of the German Court at Cologne in the celebrated [[Cologne circumcision court judgment\|German circumcision case]] of 2012.<ref>LG Köln, 07.05.2012 - 151 Ns 169/11.</ref>
			{{SEEALSO}}
			* [[United Kingdom]]

	{{LINKS}}		{{LINKS}}

WikiModEn2: Wikify.

2024-05-19T14:59:41Z

Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:59, 19 May 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|date=2015-04-05		\|date=2015-04-05
	\|accessdate=2020-12-28		\|accessdate=2020-12-28
	}}</ref> This case is significant because the Court required that [[circumcision]] be deferred until the boys are mature enough to decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their [[genital autonomy]] and right to physical integrity were protected.		}}</ref> This case is significant because the Court required that [[circumcision]] be deferred until the boys are mature enough to decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their [[genital autonomy]] and right to [[physical integrity]] were protected.

	The children in this case are two boys, aged 6 and 4. They have a 34-year-old English mother and a 36-year-old Algerian Muslim father. The parental relationship has broken down. This case addresses the arrangement for the care of the two boys.		The children in this case are two boys, aged 6 and 4. They have a 34-year-old English mother and a 36-year-old Algerian Muslim father. The parental relationship has broken down. This case addresses the arrangement for the care of the two boys.
Line 103:		Line 103:
	[[Category:'... v. ...']]		[[Category:'... v. ...']]
	[[Category:Jurisprudence]]		[[Category:Jurisprudence]]
			[[Litigation over circumcision]]

	[[Category:UK]]		[[Category:UK]]
	~~[[Litigation over circumcision]]~~

WikiAdmin: wikify

2022-06-15T18:25:32Z

wikify

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 15 June 2022
Line 28:		Line 28:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	The Court seems to have essentially adopted the mother’s position, which is entirely consistent with international human rights law. The Court refused to order circumcision and said:		The Court seems to have essentially adopted the mother’s position, which is entirely consistent with international [[human rights]] law. The Court refused to order circumcision and said:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.		It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	Mrs. Justice Roberts, in making this order, placed the rights of the child above the rights of the two divorcing parents. She made no reference to international human rights law. Nevertheless, her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under [[Human rights\| human rights law]]. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument		Mrs. Justice Roberts, in making this order, placed the rights of the child above the rights of the two divorcing parents. She made no reference to international [[human rights]] law. Nevertheless, her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under [[Human rights\|human rights law]]. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument
	\|title=Children's right to physical integrity		\|title=Children's right to physical integrity
	\|url=http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMDE3NCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL3hzbC1mby9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIwMTc0		\|url=http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMDE3NCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL3hzbC1mby9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIwMTc0

WikiAdmin: wikify genital autonomy

2021-12-21T13:01:07Z

wikify genital autonomy

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 21 December 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|date=2015-04-05		\|date=2015-04-05
	\|accessdate=2020-12-28		\|accessdate=2020-12-28
	}}</ref> This case is significant because the Court required that [[circumcision]] be deferred until the boys are mature enough to decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their genital autonomy and right to physical integrity were protected.		}}</ref> This case is significant because the Court required that [[circumcision]] be deferred until the boys are mature enough to decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised. Their [[genital autonomy]] and right to physical integrity were protected.

	The children in this case are two boys, aged 6 and 4. They have a 34-year-old English mother and a 36-year-old Algerian Muslim father. The parental relationship has broken down. This case addresses the arrangement for the care of the two boys.		The children in this case are two boys, aged 6 and 4. They have a 34-year-old English mother and a 36-year-old Algerian Muslim father. The parental relationship has broken down. This case addresses the arrangement for the care of the two boys.

WikiModEn2 at 00:18, 8 September 2021

2021-09-08T00:18:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 8 September 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	Mrs. Justice Roberts, in making this order, placed the rights of the child above the rights of the two divorcing parents. She made no reference to international human rights law. ~~Nevetheless~~, her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under [[Human rights\| human rights law]]. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument		Mrs. Justice Roberts, in making this order, placed the rights of the child above the rights of the two divorcing parents. She made no reference to international human rights law. Nevertheless, her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under [[Human rights\| human rights law]]. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe].<ref name="resolution1952">{{REFdocument
	\|title=Children's right to physical integrity		\|title=Children's right to physical integrity
	\|url=http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMDE3NCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL3hzbC1mby9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIwMTc0		\|url=http://semantic-pace.net/tools/pdf.aspx?doc=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL1hSZWYvWDJILURXLWV4dHIuYXNwP2ZpbGVpZD0yMDE3NCZsYW5nPUVO&xsl=aHR0cDovL2Fzc2VtYmx5LmNvZS5pbnQvbncveG1sL3hzbC1mby9QZGYvWFJlZi1XRC1BVC1YTUwyUERGLnhzbA==&xsltparams=ZmlsZWlkPTIwMTc0

WikiModEn2: Add category

2021-07-01T01:57:06Z

Add category

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 1 July 2021
Line 104:		Line 104:
	[[Category:Jurisprudence]]		[[Category:Jurisprudence]]
	[[Category:UK]]		[[Category:UK]]
			[[Litigation over circumcision]]

WikiAdmin: wikify 'uncircumcised'

2021-03-19T08:04:11Z

wikify 'uncircumcised'

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:04, 19 March 2021
Line 32:		Line 32:
	It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.		It is a finely balanced decision but one in respect of which I have reached a clear conclusion. First and foremost, this is a once and for all, irreversible procedure. There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father although that may very well be their choice. They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years. There are risks, albeit small, associated with the surgery regardless of the expertise with which the operation is performed. There must be clear benefits which outweigh these risks which point towards circumcision at this point in time being in their best interests before I can sanction it as an appropriate course at this stage of their young lives.

	Taking all these matters into account, my conclusion is that it would be better for the children that the court make no order at this stage in relation to circumcision than to make the order which the father seeks. I am not dismissing his application on the basis that they must develop into adulthood as uncircumcised Muslim males. I am simply deferring that decision to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term effects of the decisions which they reach. Part of that consideration will be any increase in the risks of surgery by the time they have reached puberty. I do not regard the delay between now and that point in time significantly to increase those risks. The safest point in time to have carried out the procedure, according to Mr Muir, has long since passed.<ref name="roberts2016" />		Taking all these matters into account, my conclusion is that it would be better for the children that the court make no order at this stage in relation to circumcision than to make the order which the father seeks. I am not dismissing his application on the basis that they must develop into adulthood as [[uncircumcised]] Muslim males. I am simply deferring that decision to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term effects of the decisions which they reach. Part of that consideration will be any increase in the risks of surgery by the time they have reached puberty. I do not regard the delay between now and that point in time significantly to increase those risks. The safest point in time to have carried out the procedure, according to Mr Muir, has long since passed.<ref name="roberts2016" />
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

WikiModEn2: Add external link.

2021-01-22T23:21:26Z

Add external link.

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
   |format=
   |quote=
 }}

WikiModEn2: Add text.

2021-01-12T22:24:33Z

Add text.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 12 January 2021
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Katherine Dunseath, with some ''pro bono'' instruction from [[James Chegwidden]], appeared for the mother.		Katherine Dunseath, with some ''pro bono'' instruction from [[James Chegwidden]], appeared for the mother.

			This British court reached a similar to conclusion to that of the German Court at Cologne in the celebrated [[Cologne circumcision court judgment\|German circumcision case]] of 2012.<ref>LG Köln, 07.05.2012 - 151 Ns 169/11.</ref>

	{{LINKS}}		{{LINKS}}