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

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll