header-logo header-logo

17 February 2017 / Jonathan Herring
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Points of view

nlj_7734_herring

How can the court protect a child’s welfare when faced with clashing world views, asks Jon Herring

  • Disputes over children have to be resolved by a focus on the welfare of children, rather than the rights of adults.
  • Sometimes the opposition of a religious community to contact with a parent can mean it is in the child’s welfare for there to be no direct contact.

The legal principle was easy to state: the court must assess what order would best promote the welfare of the child. The application of the principle was not: should a child living with an ultra-orthodox Jewish mother have direct contact with the other parent who was a trans woman? Jackson J had to resolve this complex dispute in J v B (Ultra-Orthodx Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4, [2017] All ER (D) 108 (Jan).

The facts of the case

At the heart of the case were five children with ages ranging from 12 to 2. The marriage ended in 2015 when their father (X) left the home and lived as a trans woman. The children remained with the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll