![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> C (Child: Involvement in Jehovah's Witness Religion) [2017] EWFC B29 (9 May 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B29.html Cite as: [2017] EWFC B29 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THE FAMILY COURT
Sitting at Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes
Magistrates’ Court
Silbury Boulevard
Milton Keynes
MK9 2AJ
Date: 9 May, 2017
B e f o r e:
DISTRICT JUDGE (MAGISTRATES’
COURTS)
DODDS
____________________
|
IN THE MATTER OF
![]() |
|
____________________
Ms Samantha Dunn (Woodfines)
appeared on behalf of the Father
Ms Julia Shillingford (Thomas Haywood) appeared on behalf of the Mother
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright
©
Agreed facts:
i.
C
to speak to his Father on the phone
ii.
The Father to pick up C
from school on a Tuesday and Wednesday and
return
him to the Mother at 6pm
iii.
The Father to have C
every other weekend from Friday school to 5pm on
Sunday or 6pm on Monday where there is a bank holiday weekend
iv.
Agreed holiday contact
when the Father would look after
C
when the
Mother was not available.
i.
a memorial service usually in April, 2017 one evening 7pm to 9pm
(described by the Father as taking place in a school hall and comprising
of a
45 minute talk and an opening and
closing
song and prayer with
child
friendly
activities)
ii.
a weekend convention
at a stadium usually in July/August (described by
the Father as like a Sunday service but on a bigger scale featuring video
dramas, short talks and
re-enactments
(e.g. how to publicly proclaim the faith
without shame according to the Father) with adults and
children
leaving as and
when they want to) – the Father says he will limit
C’s
involvement
to no more
than 3 hours
iii.
Sunday services from 10am to 12noon (according to the Father consisting
mainly of songs, prayers and bible discussion with family friendly activities –
the
children
can
get
involved
in discussion points if they want to).
iv.
Two Assemblies of one day over a weekend in April and December 10am to
4pm in London (described by the Father as similar to conventions
including
played out dramas, short talks and baptisms) – the Father says he will limit
C’s
involvement
to no more than 3 hours
v.
Whether the order as to C’s
living arrangements and spending time
arrangements should be expressed as a shared
care
arrangement in
recognition
of
the equal parental
responsibility
of each parent
vi.
The detail of holiday contact
vii. What to do in the event of a medical emergency
viii.
Whether a s7 report
is necessary.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses:
(a) are committed
to
converting
others; they
give time each week to further and spread their beliefs, engaging in house to
house evangelism; it is
common
for
Jehovah’s
Witnesses to take their
children
with them on this house to house ministry;
(b) are committed
to studying the Bible (using
their own translation of the Bible, the New World Translation) both in their
meetings at the Kingdom Hall and individually, at home;
(c)
do not
celebrate
Christmas,
Easter or birthdays,
whether by
religious
or social activities; they believe that the
celebration
of
these events is based on pagan
customs;
(d) believe that blood transfusions are against
the will of God; they therefore refuse
blood transfusions or the use of blood
products in the
course
of medical treatment, whether for themselves or for
their
children;
(e) refuse
military service; they do not believe
in war;
(f) maintain a degree of separation from those
who are not members of the movement; social contact
tends to be within the
Jehovah’s
Witness
circle;
(g) do not engage in ecumenical relationships
or
in inter-faith dialogue; they are an insular movement.
The Law relating
to the upbringing of a
child
where one
parent is a
Jehovah’s
Witness and the other is not
1. It
is not for the state or the courts
to determine the validity of
religious
beliefs
2. Parental
responsibility
is joint and equal. Neither parent has a predominant right to
choose
a
child’s
religious
upbringing
3. Where
parents follow different religions
and those
religions
are socially acceptable
a
child
should have the opportunity to learn about and experience both
religions
4. A
parent’s right to enable his or 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 the
conflict
had had or may have in the future an
impact on the
child’s
welfare the
court
is entitled to
restrict
the
child’s
involvement
in those practices. The state
can
interfere where the practice of
religious
beliefs impacts on a
child’s
welfare. For example an insightful
parent of a particular
religious
persuasion
recognises
the potential for harm
to his or her
child
by immersing that
child
in those beliefs and practices in a
way that jeopardises that
child’s
enduring
relationship
with the other parent.
Adherence to any faith
cannot
be more important than fostering a good
relationship
between the
child
and the other parent
5. 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 are proportionate.
6. 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 paramount
consideration.
Particular considerations
in
relation
to
Jehovah’s
Witnesses taken from
Re
N judgement):
a) The
ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child(ren)
concerned;
C
is too
young to express his wishes and feelings. I suspect if asked he would say that
he wants to feel safe and secure and have a good
relationship
with both of his
parents. He would not want either parent to say anything nasty or unpleasant
about the other and for his parents to be nice to each other even though they
are living apart.
b) The
(child’s)(children’s)
physical, emotional and educational needs;
C
needs
safe, secure and stable parenting with
consistent
boundaries given his age. He
needs an enduring
relationship
with both of his parents. This is of particular
importance given his mixed heritage. His Mother has described
C
as an impressionable
child
who is easily
confused
and with problems
regulating
his emotions. Both
parents describe him as bright, delightful,
cheeky,
energetic and sporty.
C
enjoys sports such as swimming and trampolining.
c)
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> The
likely effect on the (
child)(children)
of any
change
in
circumstances;
C
currently
lives with his Mother and spends about 6 hours a week with his Father
over Tuesdays and Wednesdays and additionally every other weekend. In terms of
overall time this amounts to roughly 70% of
C’s
time being spent with in his
Mother’s
care
(though he is at school or at other activities for some of that
time) and 30% of his time with his Father. The suggested
changes
for
C
are for
him to be
involved
with his Father’s faith by attending Sunday services and the
convention
and assemblies outlined above. In addition the Father seeks half of
holiday time which would be an increase on the
current
amount of time
C
spends
with his Father over school holidays. I will deal with the likely effect on
C
of these suggested
changes
at the end of my judgement.
d) The
(child’s)(children’s)
age, sex, background and any other
characteristics
which
the
Court
considers
relevant;
no issues arise that are not dealt with
elsewhere in this judgement.
e) Any
harm the (child
has)(
children
have) suffered or (is)(are) at risk of suffering;
it is more likely than not that
C
has been harmed by his parents’
separation. Some of that upset will no doubt
relate
directly to the Father becoming
ill, the stresses that led to the end of the Mother’s and Father’s
relationship
and the Father leaving the family home. It is more difficult to assign whether
upset has been
caused
by the Father
involving
C
in the Father’s faith. The
Mother makes
reference
to
C
saying to her ‘God is good and you are bad’ (
C25
paragraph 8 of the bundle). When
C
said this not
clear
and I have assumed it
was sometime before August, 2016. Both parents accept that
C
has been more
settled at school since January, 2017. He still has play therapy. In my
judgement it is more likely than not that he became more settled once he started
seeing his Father
regularly
in December, 2016. The hope is that
C
will
remain
settled in the future now that the
court
proceedings in
relation
to him have
been brought to an end. The Father has
conceded
that he should not be
involved
in one to one teaching with
C
in his faith and should not show
C
Jehovah’s
Witness
cartoons
and like media that
could
be harmful to
C.
In my judgement
this was a wise
concession.
I watched 3
cartoons
produced by the
Jehovah
Witness
Church:
‘Obey
Jehovah’,
‘Pay attention at meetings’ and ‘One man one
woman’. In ‘Obey
Jehovah’
a
child
is taught about the sinfulness of having a
cartoon
character
toy with magical powers which the
child
had to put in a bin. While
making sense to a
child
if both parents were
Jehovah’s
Witnesses such a
cartoon
would send a very
confusing
message to a
child
like
C
who has one foot in his
Mother’s world and a wider world (in which magical
characters
are everywhere in
books, television, DVDs, on the internet and in films) and his other foot in
his Father’s world where such magical
characters
are sinful. The Mother asserts
that in her submissions that the objective of the
cartoons
and bible stories is
to
condition
and indoctrinate
children
into
Jehovah’s
Witness beliefs through a
mixture of fear, manipulation and a strict boundary between behaviour which is
acceptable and pleasing and that which is not. The Father accepts that
C
should
not be exposed to such
religious
based media until
C
is at least 12 years of
age. Given that it is accepted that
C
is more settled and there is no
recent
evidence of
C
saying inappropriate things to his Mother it appears to me that
the Father is
complying
with his promise not to adversely influence
C
as Mother
fears.
f) The
capability
of the parents and any other
relevant
persons of meeting the
(
child’s)(children’s)
needs; the Mother has been the
consistent
figure in
C’s
life. She struck me as the organiser who plans and organises the great majority
of
C’s
many activities. For example she set up an i-
calendar
for the Father so
that he knows about all the various activities
C
is
involved
in. She also
struck me as the parent who sets firm boundaries and thinks of the best ways of
manage
C
e.g. using a traffic light system for discipline. She struck me as
being over anxious about
C
but this is a mild
criticism.
The Father on the
other hand struck me as less organised and not as
concerned
with routines and
boundaries as Mother. The Mother was
critical
of the Father in not backing her
up in terms. While understanding her
criticism
I must give some leeway for each
parent to be free to have different parenting styles. I was not satisfied on
the evidence that the Father was not
committed
to
C’s
activities and routine. I
accepted his evidence that he supported the Mother and made his own efforts to
speak to the school and
C’s
therapist. While I pay tribute to the
organisational skills and
commitment
of the Mother this does not mean that the
Father is less
committed
– only that he is
content
to leave the organisation to
the Mother and on occasion to parent
C
in his own way.
a. The
Mother contended
that I may not be able to trust the Father given his
changing
positions during the
course
of the proceedings and late
concessions.
The Mother
argued that the Father lacked insight. I disagree. In my judgement the Father
made sensible
concessions,
with some judicial prompting from me, and
changes
to
the
child
arrangements order he sought. His
changing
position demonstrated to
me insight and awareness particularly taking into account my warnings to him of
the
consequences
for his
relationship
with
C
if he behaves in the way the
Mother did in
Re
N. I noted that the Father did say that he saw nothing
wrong in the
religious
based
cartoons
and that he had breached his undertaking
and shown
religious
based
cartoons
to
C.
I accepted his evidence that he
realised
that this was wrong, that he does not want to jeopardise his
relationship
with
C
or with the Mother and that he will be bound by formal
undertakings given to the
court
and
recorded
in the
court
order.
b. The
Father has a one bedroom flat. When C
stays the Father sleeps on the sofa in
the living room and
C
sleeps in the Father’s bed.
g) The
range of powers available to the Court
under this Act in the proceedings in
question; I have available to me the full range of s8 orders.
I have considered
Article 8 of the European
Convention
on
Human Rights, ‘the right to
respect
for private and family life,’ in
relation
C
and each of his parents. I also have had
regard
to Article 9 ‘the right to
religious
freedom’ within the legal framework set down in
Re
N.
My Decision:
25. Shared care:
Shared
care
does not
reflect
the
reality
that each week the Mother
cares
or is
responsible
for
C
for 70 per
cent
of the time (albeit for some of that time
C
is at school and at other activities). I appreciate that the parents share
weekends alternately but the bulk of the
responsibility
for
caring
for
C
and
planning and organising his many activities falls on the Mother. I have found
that she is the organiser who has shown a great deal of
commitment
in
organising therapy for
C
and in helping the Father in maintaining
continuity
with
C’s
many activities. The orders that
reflect
this
reality
are orders that
C
live with his Mother and spend time with his Father rather than a shared
care
order. This in no way takes away that parenting is a joint
responsibility.
The
Father should not see this as some kind of loss for him or some kind of victory
for the Mother or that he is a lesser parent. It
reflects
the
reality
of the
time spent between the two parents and who has taken the lead in organising
C’s
life and
responding
to his needs particularly in terms of therapy.
26. Holiday contact:
I
agree with the Father that the Mother’s position on holiday
contact
is
illogical.
C
spends alternate weekends overnight with his Father. I
cannot
see
any risk to
C
of spending longer periods overnight with his Father. There is no
evidence that
C
does not enjoy spending overnight with his Father. I agree with
the Mother that
C
needs routines and has a full range of activities organised
for him. I accept the Father’s evidence that he is
respectful
of such
activities and routines but has some leeway for him to parent
C
in his own way.
The Mother accepts that the Father has looked after
C
for a number of weekends
from December, 2015 without adverse effects As a
result
I make the following
orders for holiday
contact:
27. School holidays: that
the Father has C
for half of school holidays with the days to be agreed between
the parties.
28. Summer holiday: that
the Father has C
for half of the summer holidays with the periods to be agreed
between the parties. This
can
include
C
spending 2 weeks with his Father and a
separate 3rd week. The alternate weekend
contact
is suspended over
the summer period so that each parent
can
take
C
away on holiday for 2-3 weeks.
29. Additional contact:
the
Father should have such additional
contact
as is agreed to between the parties.
30. Kingdom
Hall/Assemblies/Annual Conventions
and Memorials: the Father impressed me
with the
concessions
he, in my judgement, sensibly made. As a
result
I have
confidence
in him that he will abide by his undertakings which I have already
referred
to. I heard no evidence that he was in any way devious or manipulative
in the way the Mother was in
Re
N whereby she defied
court
orders and so
badly influenced her
child
whereby she lost
care
of him. Indeed I am satisfied
of the Father’s genuine motivation that
C
maintains his strong
relationship
with his Mother. Applying
Re
N (in particular at 16.3 above) I find that
C
should have the opportunity to learn and experience his Father’s
religion.
I
therefore do not wish to
restrict
him from taking
C
to the Kingdom Hall each
Sunday for up to 2 hours. I do not see that this practice of the Father’s faith
for a limited period within a group service with
child
friendly activities
poses a risk of jeopardy to
C’s
relationship
with his Mother.
C
has attended 2
meetings at the Kingdom Hall when he spent time
colouring
in and playing with
other
children.
I accepted the Father’s evidence that the service mainly
consists
of songs, prayers and bible discussions and that the services are
designed for families with
children
and the
content
pitched accordingly. I
accept that there is no guarantee that the kind of material shown to me by way
of bible stories and/or
religious
based
cartoons
may not be shown during such
services but I
consider
the risk to
C
small within the
context
of this kind of
service. Many parents
co-parent
a
child
despite pursuing different or no faiths
without emotional harm to the
child.
In addition I see no
reason
why the
Father, on his alternate weekends, should not
choose
to take
C
to the Kingdom
Hall in place of any other activity arranged on Sunday mornings by the Mother.
I do not find it unreasonable for
C
to spend one Sunday morning doing one
activity and the following Sunday morning at the Kingdom Hall. This
respects
the different parenting provided by each parent. It also balances the
respect
for one parent’s
religious
beliefs and the right of that parent to introduce
his son to those beliefs within the
context
of a service of 1-2 hours. I
consider
the risk that
C
will be given messages that endanger his
relationship
with his Mother are sufficiently small whereby it is not necessary or
proportionate to limit the Father in the practice of his
religious
beliefs and
involving
C
in them via Kingdom Hall Sunday services. I heard evidence about
C
playing rugby on Sunday mornings and then giving it up. I was unable to make
findings as to why
C
gave up rugby – whether because he simply no longer wanted
to play or whether because of a lack of
commitment
or discouragement from the
Father. I
repeat
that I do not
consider
it unreasonable for one parent to take
his
child
to a
religious
service in preference to another activity.
31. I take a different view of
Assemblies, Annual Conventions
and Memorials. These are much longer events. The
Father has undertaken to limit
C’s
involvement
to no more than 3 hours. Nevertheless
these events strike me as more intense, focussed, longer and instructive than
Sunday Kingdom Hall services. At his young age I find that there is a far
greater likelihood that
C
will be subject to kind of instruction akin to the
one to one teaching and the
religious
based media the Father has undertaken not
to
involve
C
in. Such events are likely to
involve
smaller groups. In his
evidence the Father described one activity as members of the
Church
giving
testimonials e.g. on street ministry. There is a far greater risk that
C
will
be influenced in the way the
child
was in
Re
N with disastrous
consequences
given his age and how impressionable he is and the risk of
emotional damage due to
confusing
messages. As a
result
I find it necessary and
proportionate to prohibit the Father from taking
C
to
Jehovah’s
Witness
Assemblies, Annual
Conventions
and Memorials. The Father acknowledged that such
a
restriction
was one I was likely to
consider
and asked that I time limit any
restriction
to a date when
C
was old enough to know his own mind. I find the
Father’s argument too much of a
crystal
ball gazing exercise dependant on too
many variables so I propose to make the order until
C
is sixteen years of age
subject to the Mother and Father agreeing otherwise or either party making
application to the
court
to vary the prohibited steps order e.g. when
C
is old
enough to ask either of his parents to attend an Assembly,
Convention
or
Memorial and either parents agree that this is in his best interests or the
court
rules accordingly. The same applies to the Father’s
concessions
about
Field Service, one to one teaching and showing
C
religious
based media. These undertakings
must
remain
in place until sixteen years of age or until the parents both agree
otherwise or further application to the
court.
This is my decision.
Malcolm Dodds
District Judge
9 May, 2017