Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Ms Frances Heaton QC, Ms Jane Walker (instructed by Alfred Newton & Co) for the Respondent children acting by their Guardian
This case concerned private law proceedings between the father and the mother of 5 children, now aged between 5 and 15 years of age. Having struggled with his gender orientation for much of his life, the father left the home to live finally as a transgender person. It is difficult to imagine the extent of the personal torment that must have been involved in that decision. She (the father) now lives as a woman.
The family are Charedi Jews. This community can properly be described as ultra-Orthodox. Its ways of life, customs and observances are little understood by and alien to many, including many within the wider Jewish community. It is entirely inconsistent with Charedi beliefs to accommodate transgender people within their community. Their concern is to shield children from knowledge of or exposure to such matters. Their belief system requires them to restrict their children from coming into contact with children who have been �exposed�, as they would see it, to �such behaviours�.
Many would disagree with this approach. Indeed, it is offensive to those who believe in a tolerant, diverse, pluralistic society. In a mature society, however, accommodations have to be found, and this includes recognising and respecting religious and cultural beliefs that are outside what might loosely be called �mainstream opinion�.
In 2017, Mr Justice Jackson (as he then was) heard this case and made orders that contact between the father and the children should take place only indirectly four times per year [2017] EWFC 4 . The Court of Appeal [2018] 3 All ER 316 permitted an appeal against that order. The Court considered that the Judge had not engaged sufficiently with the complex interplay of Article 9: the right to manifest one�s religion; Article 14: prohibition of discrimination; and the reach and scope of the Equality Act 2010. The matter was listed for rehearing before me in April 2018.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.