The pressure on children growing up with Jehovah's Witness connections can make their childhood extremely difficult.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed95530
Children: Private Law Update (February 2012)
Alex Verdan QC reviews the most significant of the latest judgments in private law Children applications.
Alex Verdan QC, 4 Paper BuildingsIn this review I will focus on recent material covering the following topics:
- Principles to be applied in cases relating to religious upbringing;
- Applications concerning same sex couples and children conceived by IVF;
- Applications for parental orders under surrogacy agreements.
Religious upbringing
Re N (A Child - Religion – Jehovah's Witness) [2011] EWHC B26 (Fam)
This case concerned the parties' cross applications for residence of a 4 year old child (N), and an attempt by the father to restrict the child's involvement in the mother's practice as a Jehovah Witness.
The practice of Jehovah Witnesses was highly relevant to the circumstances of this case. In his judgement HHJ Clifford Bellamy, sitting as a High Court Judge, outlined the central beliefs which were central to this issue:
- Commitment to converting others by engaging in house to house evangelism, and commonly taking their children with them;
- Commitment to studying the Bible and attending Kingdom Hall meetings;
- Not to celebrate Christmas, Easter or birthdays;
- Not to allow blood transfusions;
- To maintain a degree of separation from non-members, and not to engage in ecumenical or inter faith relationships.
The mother was brought up as a Jehovah Witness but did not inform the father of this until they had been in a relationship for six months. The father was an Anglican and attended church on most Sundays with N and the paternal grandparents but was not a 'great religious person'. The father was in the Army.
In contrast, the mother was a committed Jehovah Witness, and would regularly take N to her meetings at the Kingdom Hall. The mother did not want N to be involved in school assemblies or to go to any other place of worship, and withdrew the child from the school nativity play.
The father expressed great concern that N was being over exposed to the mother's religious beliefs and practices and sought to limit this. Furthermore, the father was worried that the mother would withhold her consent to a blood transfusion for N should the need arise.
The judge set out the following principles to be applied in cases such as these [85]:
(i) Parental responsibility is joint and equal. Neither parent has a predominant right to choose a child's religious upbringing.
(ii) Where parents follow different religions and those religions are both socially acceptable the child should have the opportunity to learn about and experience both religions.
(iii) A parent's right to enable her child to learn about and experience his or her religion is not an unconfined right. Where the practice of that religion involves a lifestyle which conflicts with the lifestyle of the other parent and the court is satisfied that that conflict has had or may in the future have an impact on the child's welfare the court is entitled to restrict the child's involvement in those practices.
(iv) Restrictions imposed for welfare reasons do not necessarily amount to a breach of that parent's right to follow the beliefs and practices of his or her religion provided that any restriction imposed is justified by the findings made by the court and proportionate.
(v) In determining such an issue, as in the determination of any other question relating to the upbringing of the child, the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
The judge held that there was no reason why N should not continue to attend both the Kingdom Hall with his mother and the Anglican Church, including Sunday school, with his father and paternal grandparents. The frequency of visits to the Kingdom Hall was not to be limited as the father requested; such an imposition was not considered either justified or proportionate.
However, the judge had profound reservations about the appropriateness of either parent 'teaching' their beliefs to N in any formal sense, by 'instructing' or 'giving lessons', and such practice was to be restricted.
Neither parent was to prevent N from taking part in school activities, including nativity plays, other performances, concerts, after school clubs, sports and field trips.
With regards to medical treatment, the court was referred to guidance given by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland in a booklet published in 2005 under the title Management of Anaesthetics for Jehovah's Witnesses. Section 3 of the booklet is headed 'The legal position in respect of anaesthesia and consent'. At paragraph [99] the judge quoted the following:
'Children of Jehovah's Witnesses below the age of 16 years may cause particular difficulty. The wellbeing of the child is overriding and, if the parents refuse to give permission for blood transfusion, it may be necessary to apply for a 'Specific Issue Order' via the High Court in order legally to administer the blood transfusion...It is important, however, before this serious step is taken, that two doctors of consultant status should make an unambiguous clear signed entry in the clinical record that blood transfusion is essential, or likely to become so, to save life or prevent permanent serious harm…
In the case of young people over 12 years who are capable of understanding the issues, the anaesthetist may be able to rely upon their consent.
The management of a child of a Jehovah's Witness in an emergency situation who is likely to succumb without the immediate administration of blood is viewed in law in a different light. In this situation, application to the courts will be too time-consuming and the blood should be transfused without consulting the court. The courts are likely to uphold the decision of the doctors who give blood.'
All parties agreed that this is an accurate outline of the position in law. It was also agreed and accepted that where consent is required for the medical treatment of a child, the consent of one parent alone is sufficient.
The following was further ordered:
'In the event that any medical professional (whether here or abroad) recommends a blood transfusion or any other medical treatment for N when he is in the mother's care, the mother shall inform the medical authorities/professional immediately of the father's contact details, and his ability to consent to such treatment.'