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 application limited indirect contact was ordered.
Held: Appeal allowed 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 remitted for further consideration.
Judges:
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division
Citations:
[2017] EWCA Civ 2164, [2018] 2 FLR 800, [2018] WLR(D) 165, [2018] 4 WLR 60, [2018] 3 All ER 316, [2018] 2 FCR 559
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) FC 30-Jan-2017
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, . .
Cited by:
At CA – 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.
Children, Human Rights, Discrimination
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.601852
