header-logo header-logo

19 July 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Interfaith parenting

HLE blogger Geraldine Morris examines the approach to religion in family proceedings

The media love a celebrity divorce, so the recent news that the actor and leading member of the Church of Scientology, Tom Cruise, is to divorce for the third time has inevitably attracted a lot of attention and speculation. While the lives of celebrities may seem far removed from those of ordinary mortals, one issue that has reportedly been a cause of concern to the third Mrs Cruise, Katie Holmes, is that of their daughter’s religious upbringing within the Church of Scientology.

Disagreements on religious upbringing may arise in any family. The Cruises have apparently settled their issues at a very early stage, a testament perhaps to good lawyers, but also possibly high stakes and reputation management. For those who can’t agree, there is plenty of guidance from the courts in this jurisdiction. Often cases are concerned with simple or small issues and established religion. Others, as with the majority of cases detailed hereafter, deal with more extreme circumstances.

The Court of Appeal took the view in Re R (A Minor) (Religious Sect) [1993] 2 FCR 525 that religious influences are significant in terms of a child’s future welfare and thus are one of the relevant circumstances when applying the principle of the paramountcy of the child’s welfare as set out in the Children Act 1989, s 1. Parents do not have to provide their child with any religious instruction at all, the issue tends to arise only where one parent is particularly keen for a child to receive religious instruction or where the parties are of different religions and have strong views.

Context is everything—there are no hard and fast rules relating to set religious practices or beliefs, the court will look at the reality of the child’s upbringing and family circumstances and the impact of any decision made in relation to religion…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7523 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll