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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

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

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

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