header-logo header-logo

Points of view

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

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

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll