F had left the family all ultra orthodox Jews, to identify and live as a woman, an action straightforwardly forbidden within the sect. F had abandoned contact with the children but now sought to re-instate at first indirect but then full contact. M, fearing the ostracism of the children opposed all but very limited indirect contact.
Held: There was a clear conflict between the rights and proper expectations of the parties. In this case, the probability was that the children would face ostracism from others within their faith group. Only limited and indirect contact as appropriate.
Judges:
Peter Jackson J
Citations:
[2017] EWFC 4, [2017] WLR(D) 142, [2017] 2 FCR 230, [2017] 4 WLR 201, [2018] 1 FLR 59
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Re M (Children) CA 20-Dec-2017
F and M were members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect. H transgendered, a process utterly unacceptable within the sect. Any continued association with the children would severely risk their ostracism, and at first F did not seek contact, but on his . .
At FD (1) – A (Children) (Contact: Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender Parent) FC 20-Jan-2020
M and F, members of an ultra orthodox Jewish sect, had five children. F transgendered and sought and was granted an order for restricted indirect contact. The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and the case was remitted for reconsideration.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Children
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.573770
