UPDATE: Children & Religious Upbringing

In August 2012, I wrote about a judge’s decision in relation to the religious upbringing of a child whose parents (one Jewish and the other Christian) disagreed on the matter. The Court of Appeal has recently revisited this topic in the case of Re G(Children) (Education: Religious Upbringing).  In this case both parents were orthodox Jews but the father wanted the children to continue their education at an ultra-orthodox school while the mother wanted them to attend a less orthodox co-educational school with, she argued, superior education opportunities.  The father was appealing a decision in the mother’s favour.

Lord Justice Munby, acting as a ‘judicial reasonable parent’, dismissed the father’s appeal concluding that the trial judge had been right to find that the mother’s choice of school better served the best interests of the children.  Munby LJ justified his decision by saying that the more liberal school, with superior educational opportunities, would better prepare the children to make their own decisions as to how they would want to live their lives once they reached adulthood.

UPDATE: Decision in Australian Hague Convention Abduction Case

On 21 June 2012, I posted a link to an article I had written entitled "Social Media and the Voice of the Child in Hague Convention Applications".  The article looked at the use of Facebook in proceedings which  related to four sisters who were resident in Italy and who went with their mother to Australia for what their father thought was a four week holiday.  The mother did not return with the children and the father issued proceedings for their return under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.  The sisters, who claimed they wanted to stay in Australia with their mother, were adamant that their views had not been taken into account when the first application was heard last year.  The Facebook page, entitled Kids Without Voices, was part of their campaign to remain in Australia.

The sisters' mother, and her family, used every possible tactic to try and keep the girls from being returned to Italy including talking to the media, taking the girls into hiding (which attracted further media attention) and challenging the order to return the girls on a constitutional basis as the girls had not been not given separate legal representation.

All this meant that a significant amount of time had passed since the original order had been made and so Justice Forrest, who made the original order, agreed to a further hearing to determine if there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify the discharge of the order and allow the girls to remain in Australia with their mother.  The hearing was held last week and Justice Forrest released the decision today refusing to allow the mother's appeal and ordering that the girls be returned, against their wishes, to Italy.  He held that the children's wishes and the lapse in time since the original order were not significant enough to override the operation of international law.

A link to the original article is here, which includes a more detailed summary of the case and the law, and an update on today's decision can be found here.

Children and Religious Upbringing. Who gets the final say?

A recent decision by a Judge in Romford County Court has ruled that a 10 year old Jewish girl can be baptised into the Anglican Church against her mother’s wishes.

 

Religious differences can often be a factor in the breakdown of a relationship.  Just look at Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes and their different views on Scientology.  When children are involved things rarely go as smoothly as they have done for TomKat, particularly if both parents have strong views on how the child should be raised.

So who should have the final say in the spiritual upbringing of children?

In the Romford case the mother argued that her daughter was too immature to make such a significant decision.  In Judaism, it is believed that intellectual maturity is not gained until a girl reaches bat mitzvah (usually at the age of 12).  The Judge did not share this view and his decision appeared to be largely influenced by the girl’s own reasons for wanting to be baptised, which she was allowed to explain directly to the Judge during the proceedings. The decision has not been well received by the Jewish community.

The mother was also concerned that the experience would be unsettling for the girl given her Jewish upbringing. The girl’s father had also been brought up as a Jew and only converted to Christianity after separating from the mother.  The Judge did consider this, explaining to the girl that she would not lose her Jewish heritage by being baptised and that she should be encouraged to be educated in both religions. This has further outraged members of the Jewish community as they see this as confusing the girl’s religious identity.

Was the Judge Right?

The issue of religious upbringing was dealt with in the High Court case of Re N in 2011 where it was confirmed that neither parent has a predominant right to choose a child’s religious upbringing and, where the parents follow different religions, the child should be allowed to learn about and experience both.  The mother in the Romford case did not object to the child being exposed to, and learning about, her father’s religion.  The father took the girl and her brother to church on a regular basis which the mother was aware of and had agreed to.  She had also acknowledged that, should her daughter wish to be baptised once she was older, she would be free to do so.

In light of the above, did the Judge go too far in saying that the 10 year old could be baptised? Or was he right to put the wishes of the child over those of the mother?

What do you think?