17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text.
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) EWFC 3| 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.<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.
</blockquote>
The Court seems to have essentially adopted the mother’s position, which is entirely consistent with international human rights law. The Court said:
<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.
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>
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]].
{{LINKS}}
|quote=
}}
{{REF}}