Re L and B (CHILDREN)
Construction Site
This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.
Re L and B (CHILDREN)[2016] EWHC 849 (Fam) is a British Family Court (Exeter) case that was decided on 5 April 2016 by Mrs Justice Roberts.[1]
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.
The Court heard testimony on the medical and religious aspects of non-therapeutic child circumcision.
The Court considered these matters at length in a 37-page opinion and order. The Court provided a history of British circumcision jurisprudence, including the recent case of Re B and G (Children)(No 2) [2015] EWFC 3, [2015] 1 FLR 905 in which Sir James Munby ruled that male circumcision caused “significant harm”, and from which the Court quoted extensively.[1]
The Court recognized that Algeria is not a state-party to the 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.
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 confirmed that her current position in relation to the issue of circumcision was that the children should have the right in due course to make decisions about what happened to their own bodies at a time and age when they had sufficient understanding to appreciate all the implications. She did not believe the procedure was medically necessary. It was an irreversible and permanent step which was likely to cause them pain and it was not a decision which either she or their father should take now on their behalves. She recognised the strength of his religious convictions and was not seeking to place any obstacles in their practice of his faith whilst they spent time with him. They could still attend prayers with him and go to the mosque as often as he chose to take them, but a decision in relation to such a final and irreversible procedure was best deferred until the children reached a level of maturity to make the decision themselves. She did not intend to bring them up in the Islamic faith. Neither she nor her partner held any structured or formal religious beliefs and the children had no Muslim friends at their school.[1]
External links
(2016). British court: Circumcision choice should be left until children old enough to decide for themselves
, http://www.circinfo.org, Circumcision Information Australia. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
References
- ↑ a b c Roberts, Mrs.Justice (5 April 2015).
Re L and B (Children) (Specific Issues: Temporary Leave to Remove From the Jurisdiction; Circumcision)
, https://www.bailii.org, British and Irish Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 28 December 2020.