20,856
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
[[Litigation over circumcision]]
Wikify.
|date=2015-04-05
|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.
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 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.
The mother’s position on circumcision was:
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" />
</blockquote>
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}}
[[Category:'... v. ...']]
[[Category:Jurisprudence]]
[[Litigation over circumcision]]
[[Category:UK]]