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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll