A mind-blowingly tricky case, involving hot-button issues on either side.
A mother and father have five children, ranging in ages from 3 to 13. The family are all part of the ultra-orthodox North Manchester Charedi Jewish community. The father left the family home in 2015 and became transgender, he now lives as a woman.
The ultra-orthodox Charedi Jewish community view the father’s actions as ones of choice, and as a sin, and he would be ostracised from the community. If the children were to spend time with their father, they also would be marginalised by their community.
The Judge at first instance, Peter Jackson J (as he then was), concluded that the children would not be upset or traumatised by their father’s transgender status and would cope with it, but that they would be harmed by being ostracised within their religious community. It was a difficult balance expressed eloquently :-
8.Peter Jackson J identified (judgment, para 166) fifteen arguments in favour of direct contact which he described as “formidable”. He could identify (para 168) only two factors that spoke against direct contact. Of the first, relating to the father’s “dependability”, he found (para 172) that “if it were the only obstacle to direct contact, it could probably be overcome.” That left only one factor, which he described (para 173) as “the central question”, namely “the reaction of the community if the children were to have direct contact with the father.”
9.On this, his findings were as clear as they were bleak. He found (para 156) that:
“The children will suffer serious harm if they are deprived of a relationship with their father.”
10.Nonetheless he decided, as we have seen, that there should be no direct contact. He explained why. First (para 177):
“Having considered all the evidence, I am driven to the conclusion that there is a real risk, amounting to a probability, that these children and their mother would be rejected by their community if the children were to have face-to-face contact with their father.”
Then (para 181):
“I … reject the bald proposition that seeing the father would be too much for the children. Children are goodhearted and adaptable and, given sensitive support, I am sure that these children could adapt considerably to the changes in their father. The truth is that for the children to see their father would be too much for the adults.”
And then this (para 187):
“So, weighing up the profound consequences for the children’s welfare of ordering or not ordering direct contact with their father, I have reached the unwelcome conclusion that the likelihood of the children and their mother being marginalised or excluded by the ultra-Orthodox community is so real, and the consequences so great, that this one factor, despite its many disadvantages, must prevail over the many advantages of contact (emphasis added).”
11.We suspect that many reading this will find the outcome both surprising and disturbing, thinking to themselves, and we can understand why, how can this be so, how can this be right?
The case went to the Court of Appeal.
Re M (Children) 2017
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/2164.html
2.This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Peter Jackson J, as he then was, made in private law proceedings between the father and the mother of five children, whose ages now range from 13 to 3 years old. His judgment was handed down on 30 January 2017: J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4, [2017] WLR(D) 142. The judgment, which was necessarily lengthy, is freely available to all on the BAILII website, so we can be more limited in quoting from it than might otherwise be appropriate. We do, however, urge anyone who has occasion to read our judgment to read Peter Jackson J’s judgment first.
3.The order was made on 2 February 2017. It was expressed as being a final order. The judge dismissed the father’s application for direct contact (the children live with the mother). The order contained a child arrangements order providing for limited indirect contact, a specific issue order directing that the children were to be provided with “staged narratives” in age-appropriate terms, and a family assistance order under section 16 of the Children Act 1989, naming the children’s guardian as the relevant officer, to remain in force until 1 February 2018. The father sought permission to appeal; the perfected grounds of appeal are dated 17 March 2017. Permission to appeal was given by King LJ on 16 June 2017. On 27 October 2017, McFarlane LJ gave both Stonewall Equality Limited (“Stonewall”) and Keshet Diversity UK (“KeshetUK”) permission to intervene in the appeal, limited to making written submissions. On 10 November 2017, the father applied for permission to admit further evidence, which we admitted de bene esse.
4.The appeal came on for hearing before us on 15 November 2017. Ms Alison Ball QC and Mr Hassan Khan appeared for the father, Mr Peter Buckley for the mother, and Ms Frances Heaton QC and Ms Jane Walker for the children’s guardian. Ms Karon Monaghan QC and Ms Sarah Hannett filed written submissions on behalf of Stonewall and Ms Jane Rayson and Mr Andrew Powell filed written submissions on behalf of KeshetUK. At the end of the hearing we reserved judgment, which we now hand down.
The case in outline
5.The outcome of this appeal is of very great importance to the father, to the mother and the children, and to the ultra-orthodox North Manchester Charedi Jewish community in which the children have always been brought up. But in its potential implications this appeal is of profound significance for the law in general and family law in particular. For on one view it raises the question of how, in evaluating a child’s welfare, the court is to respond to the impact on the child of behaviour, or the fear of behaviour, which is or may be unlawfully discriminatory as involving breaches of Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or of the Equality Act 2010.
I suspect most readers have already formed a firm view as to what is the right outcome here – but I also suspect that not everyone will have the same firm view. It is decidedly tricky. For my part, I struggle to see how the views of an intolerant religious community should deprive the children of their relationship with their father (until such time as the children can make up their own mind about where their preferences lie), but I am mindful that I come to this as a wholly secular person who does not hold religious beliefs. Might I think differently about it if faith was a major part of MY life, as it clearly is for this family?
The judgment
12.Having thus introduced the issues which confront us, we turn to a more detailed analysis of Peter Jackson J’s judgment. After an Introduction (judgment, paras 1-11) and a section dealing with Terminology (paras 12-16), he set out a Narrative of events (paras 17-36), to which we refer the reader. For present purposes, there are only two matters we need to refer to. The first, (para 33) relates to the minutes of a “Team around the children meeting” held within the community in April 2016. Of these minutes, the judge made this observation (para 34):
“These Minutes are of interest. Not having been prepared with these proceedings in mind, they illustrate the prevailing mindset. There is at least as much concern for the community as for the children. The father was entirely ignored.”
The other matter relates to something which the judge referred to (para 36) as an example of the high level of tension surrounding the proceedings:
“In November [2016], on the first morning of the hearing, an unidentified member of the community posted this WhatsApp message:
“HELP! SAVE!
Family [name]’s (A Mother & her 5 Children) fate is in court this morning (for the next 10 days). Please Daven [pray] for them. We can’t afford to lose this case. The Rabbonim [rabbis] have asked for this message to be sent. The family know and want it to be sent. Pls forward this message. The koach of tefilloh [power of prayer] can achieve everything.””
13.The judge then turned to the law (paras 37-56). There has been no challenge to his analysis.
14.Then in a long section (paras 57-142) the judge rehearsed the evidence. For present purposes we can be selective. In the course of setting out the mother’s evidence (paras 69-77), the judge said this (paras 73-74):
“73 The mother described the father as having been “severely ostracised” by the community. She had no other experience of the reaction of the community to transgender or homosexual people, but described the problems for a neighbour’s children when their mother wanted to leave the religion and the consequences when one of her female cousins began to deviate in her style of dress. She said that she was very aware that the schools must uphold British values, but that “the parent body are the school”. Respect must be shown for people, no matter who they are, but at the same time the ethos of the school must be upheld, no matter what. Transgender is extremely alien to the community and against religious law. As for homosexuality, young children are not faced with it. As she put it: “I uphold the British law within our faith.” If there is a conflict between law and faith, she would follow her faith, though she would not commit a crime. The present circumstances put her in a very difficult position.
74 The mother said that there is no way that direct contact will work out for the children, for their identity, for their culture and for their whole environment. She said this, even though she knew that she and the children are entitled to legal protection against victimization. The schools would probably not throw out the children, but the environment would become hostile. The parent body would not allow their children to play with the children, and no one can tell others how to bring up their own children. “They will protect their children from contact. They wouldn’t want my children to suffer and will have every sympathy, but their own children will come first.” The children’s next schools would not have to take them, and could just say they were full. “Are we going to get the whole community to tell them off?” The mother can see the children being rarely invited to family events and festivities because people would be nervous about what they would say. There would be extreme supervision and the children’s participation would be kept at a very basic level. Already, A is being asked questions and is reluctant to commit himself fully within his peer group. This, said the mother, is “the reality – it’s who we are”.”
15.Particularly striking in this context, was the evidence of Mrs S, a very experienced foster carer who identifies herself as an observant modern Orthodox Jew, of whom the judge said this (paras 108-111):
“108 Mrs S, who clearly has a close knowledge of the workings of the community, described its unhappiness at children being fostered outside the community, though it acknowledged that she was a preferable carer to any of the available alternatives.
109 Mrs S provided two striking instances of the way in which children exposed to ‘outside influences’ will be ostracised. In 2015 Child A, a 15-year-old girl who had been sexually abused in the community was placed in her care. The girl was not invited to Hanukkah gatherings by her classmates. When Mrs S challenged the mother of one of the girl’s close friends about this, she explained that she could not risk her daughter hearing about “things” as children in the community were kept innocent and sheltered. When Mrs S described the distress that these actions were causing, the mother did invite the girl to her house, but only under strict supervision. The child lost her best friend and all her childhood friends. She now attends a different school and has absolutely no association with her former social circle.
110 Mrs S spoke of Child B, whom she had fostered from another ultra-Orthodox community. The child, aged 14, had been sexually and emotionally abused within her family and the wider community since the age of 11. She had made statements to her school about her abuse. The response had been to put her on a plane out of the country and invent a story to explain her absence. When she was returned to the country and placed in foster care, “all hell broke loose”. Mrs S said that she personally had a broad set of shoulders but that it had been a struggle to protect the child at the beginning. She was rejected by her family and no longer allowed to talk to friends. As Mrs S put it, “It’s the knowledge that is the issue.”
111 Mrs S freely described these as “awful case studies”, which she related to assist the court to understand that this response was the norm where religious culture, identity and laws are breached. She said that they were not “standout cases”. At the beginning of her fostering career, they would have had her “up in arms”, but she now saw this behaviour as being unchangeable – by local authorities, foster carers, courts and the law. “They will find a way around it.””
Of the cases described by Mrs S, the judge said this (para 178(3)-(4)):
“The cases of Child A and Child B, described by their foster carer Mrs S, show the lengths to which the community is prepared to go, regardless of the justice of the matter or the welfare of the young people … They are clear examples of discrimination and victimisation (there is no other apt description) in cases that did not raise anything like as problematic a challenge to community attitudes as the present case (emphasis added).”
16.Also of importance, as we shall see, in influencing the judge’s thinking, was the evidence of Rabbi Andrew Oppenheimer (paras 90-102). This part of the judgment requires to be read in full. Here we merely quote the salient passages. First (paras 91-92):
“91 Rabbi Oppenheimer describes Charedi communities as “warm, close-knit and supportive communities for which the teachings of Torah Judaism guide all aspects of their lives … The teachings of the Torah also highlight integrity, respect for others, peace and justice (including respect for the law of the country) and place the family and its welfare at the heart of life … Allegiance to the lifestyle … means of necessity that members have traditional values and seek to guard their children and themselves against what they regard as the dangers and excesses of modern open society.”
92 Rabbi Oppenheimer was clear that transgender and procedures to achieve sex change violate a number of basic principles in Torah Law, including the prohibition against castration (Leviticus 22.24) and the prohibition against wearing garments of the opposite sex (Deuteronomy 22.5).”
17.Next (paras 95-96):
“95 In regard to the attitude of the community, Rabbi Oppenheimer writes:
“Where a person decides to take action likely to be irreversible to transgender, Ultra-Orthodox community members will invariably take the view that, by embarking on that course, the transgender person has breached the contract which they entered into when they married their wife to observe the Torah and to establish and bring up a family in accordance with its laws. Furthermore, members of the community will naturally wish to protect themselves and their families from any discussion of the painful issues involved, especially bearing in mind the sheltered position of the community from the standpoint of open society. Knowledge of transgender amongst children in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community is almost non-existent, for the reasons mentioned above concerning their lack of access to Internet and the media. There is no known precedent in the UK of a transgender person being accepted living in an Ultra-Orthodox community.
The result will be that community members will expect the family of the transgender person to limit their contact with him or her as far as possible. If the family of the transgender person nevertheless seeks, or indeed is forced, to maintain contact with that person, they will open themselves up to very serious consequences indeed. The families around them will effectively ostracise them by not allowing their children to have more than the most limited contact with that family’s children. The impact on the family in such circumstances in terms of social isolation will be devastating.
In considering the best interests of the children the obvious conclusion from the discussion above is that the children of an Ultra-Orthodox union cannot and should not be expected to have any direct contact with the father in such circumstances. It will no doubt be argued against this approach that it is cruel, lacking in tolerance, unnecessary and denies the rights of the father. But Torah law (Halacha) has the same approach to English Family Law in this type of situation, regarding issues of residence and contact, that the interests of the children are paramount. In other words the father is expected to give precedence to the needs of the children over his own needs.”
96 In his oral evidence, Rabbi Oppenheimer remarked that “ostracise” was perhaps not the best word to use for a process that would not be organised but more subtle and inevitable – “it would be so much more”.”
18.Then this (para 97):
“He … asserted that under the Torah and in reality a person is considered to have a choice, albeit a difficult one, as to whether they become transgender. If they do, they choose to place themselves outside the embrace of the community. In Torah law, to be gay or transgender is to be a sinner. Even though it may be looked on with compassion, and some people may extend the hand of friendship, that does not alter its unacceptability. The mother could not remain married to a person who made that decision. She should still seek in a constrained way to promote respect for the father but at the same time to protect the children from the consequences until they are old enough to deal with them. Young people cannot deal with these issues without undermining their faith. There is too much of a conflict to understand. There is therefore an obligation to protect the children from finding things out that are likely to damage them and cause them pain and suffering, likely to damage their growth and spiritual well-being. By educating children in the way of the Torah, they are brought up as upright people.”
19.And then, finally for present purposes, this (paras 99-101):
“99 Rabbi Oppenheimer explained that excluding ideas that might damage the development of children is “the price we pay – we limit ordinary social contact so that we transmit our spiritual ethos to the next generation”.
100 When pressed about the impact of ultra-Orthodox custom and practice in a case such as the present, Rabbi Oppenheimer replied with some warmth that this had nothing to do with emotions or feelings – it was contrary to Torah law for the children to be exposed to transgender. Further pressed as to the basis for this assertion, the Rabbi fell back upon the overriding consideration in Leviticus to be holy and to separate oneself from anything contrary to the Torah.
101 Indirect contact, on the other hand, would not, he thought, give rise to such a risk of ostracism, as it would not enable the children to have “a living relationship”.”
20.Pausing at this point there are two points which require emphasis.
21.The first is the community’s determination – what Rabbi Oppenheimer described as its “obligation to protect the children from finding things out that are likely to damage … their growth and spiritual well-being” – to shield its children from knowledge of and exposure to such matters as sexual abuse, homosexuality and transgenderism and, more generally, what Rabbi Oppenheimer called the “excesses of modern open society”; and to restrict its children from coming into contact with children who have such knowledge or have been so exposed.
22.The second is Rabbi Oppenheimer’s chilling explanation as to why indirect contact would not give rise to a risk of ostracism: “it would not enable the children to have “a living relationship”.”
23.Peter Jackson J’s response to this was brisk (paras 179-180):
“179 In balancing the advantages and disadvantages of the children being allowed to see their father, I apply the law of the land. Some witnesses in these proceedings assert that gay or transgender persons have made a lifestyle choice and must take the consequences. The law, however, recognises the reality that one’s true sexuality and gender are no more matters of choice than the colour of one’s eyes or skin.
180 It has also been said that transgenderism is a sin. Sin is not valid legal currency. The currency of the law is the recognition, protection and balancing out of legal rights and obligations. In this case, to be recognised and respected as a transgender person is a right, as is the right to follow one’s religion. Likewise, each individual is under an obligation to respect the rights of others, and above all the rights of the children.”
24.In striking contrast with Rabbi Oppenheimer’s evidence was that of Rabbi Ariel Abel (paras 78-83), who described himself as mainstream Orthodox and falling under the authority of the Chief Rabbi. He grew up in the North Manchester Charedi community and has experience of communities in London, Liverpool and Manchester at various levels of orthodoxy. The judgment (paras 80-81) summarised his evidence:
“Rabbi Abel emphasised the central importance of honouring one’s parents within Jewish law and tradition. He said that there is scarcely any circumstance in which the obligation to honour one’s father does not apply. Even if the father is an outright sinner, which is not in his view a consideration in this case, the obligation persists. He considered this aspect of the matter to have been left untreated by Rabbi Oppenheimer.
In relation to transgender, Rabbi Abel considered that there is a plurality of opinion and that the biblical position may be qualified. He contends that there is no valid reason why any person should plead ultra-Orthodox faith as a reason to disenfranchise a person in the position of the father. “There is no legitimate reason to maintain that children who are transgender-parented cannot experience in the ultra-Orthodox community a full and satisfying Orthodox Jewish life, physically, spiritually, emotionally and communally.” On the contrary, there is every reason to reunite parent and child as it is the well-being of the nuclear family and not the social preferences of the wider community that truly matter. He points to commentary by the noted encyclopaedist, the late Rabbi Waldenberg, in support of his contention that Orthodox Judaism, correctly understood, recognises the existence of, and to a certain extent accommodates, a number of non-binary identities, including transgender. He argues that the transgender issue cannot be ignored and that parents’ relationships with their children are inalienable.”
25.The judgment continues (paras 82-83):
“Rabbi Abel objected to the concept (introduced by Rabbi Oppenheimer) of the faith as a club from which people could be ejected, though he observed that this evidently happens. An approach of this kind, practically amounting to a belief, raises itself to the surface, usually in worst-case scenarios. This is a social cultural reality, not a valid Orthodox reason for separating children from parents. There is a lamentable habit of censoring. Children of divorced parents can be seated separately from other children and he had experience of this, something he described as beggaring belief. In his view, this should not be accommodated or excused in Jewish or English law. On the other hand, he had never heard of total ostracism in practice, provided the contentious matter was treated privately within the family, and not paraded before the community. However, he accepted that ostracism for these children could very possibly happen if the situation was not managed correctly with professional help. What was needed was psychological support: religious teachers should be kept out of it.
The Rabbi accepted that the present circumstances would be a challenge to the insular North Manchester community. He argued that when it comes to matters of life and death, you have to break free and seek to work with the unfamiliar problem. He gave as an example creative arrangements that might be made to allow the father to participate in A’s bar mitzvah. There are ways, and it can happen if there is a will. The issues are significant, but not insurmountable. The community is not monolithic, but multifarious. It will step back if proper arrangements are made by both parents. If the situation is unregulated, the community will take matters into its own hands. If direct contact was ordered, and the law laid down, he did not think that the community would “go to the wire” fighting an unwinnable battle.”
26.We have set this important evidence out in full because it seems to us to hold out hope of a change. Rabbi Abel demonstrates that there exists what we imagine is a lively debate, perhaps within this thoughtful, law-abiding and intellectual community and probably Orthodox Judaism generally, of the issues to which transgenderism gives rise. Does it not provide some support for a conclusion in this case that the views which drove the judge are not universally inflexible?
So even within the religious community there was a deep schism about what the Torah says and what in practice might happen if the children were to see their father. Of course, the Judge dealing with the case didn’t have to deal with what position the ultra-Orthodox community SHOULD take, but what position they realistically WOULD take
30.The judge then turned (paras 143-161) to consider the welfare checklist. For present purposes, we need refer only to this (paras 156-157), which really encapsulates the dilemma confronting him:
“156 The children will suffer serious harm if they are deprived of a relationship with their father.
157 The children would suffer serious harm if they were excluded from the normal life of the community.”
31.Finally (paras 162-191) the judge set out his Assessment and conclusion. He began as follows (paras 162-165):
“162 I find this a very troubling case. These children are caught between two apparently incompatible ways of living, led by tiny minorities within society at large. Both minorities enjoy the protection of the law: on the one hand the right of religious freedom, and on the other the right to equal treatment. It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.
163 A great deal of time has been spent at this hearing on consideration of the laws and customs of the ultra-Orthodox community. This is natural, given that it is the community within which the children live. However, Ms Ball QC and Ms Mann for the father argue that one must not look only through an ultra-Orthodox lens. I agree. Despite its antiquity, Jewish law is no more than 3,500 years old, while gender dysphoria will doubtless have existed throughout the 120,000 years that Homo sapiens has been on earth. Both sides of the question must therefore receive careful attention.
164 Faced with this intractable problem, it is not for the court to judge the way of life of the ultra-Orthodox Jew or of the transgender person. The court applies the law, and in this case its task is to identify the outcome that best upholds the children’s welfare while minimising so far as possible the degree of interference with the rights of all family members.
165 Here, the best possible outcome would be for the children to live with their mother, grow up in the community, and enjoy a full relationship with their father by regular contact. The worst outcome, I find, would be for the mother and children to be excluded from the community. The question is whether, in striving for the best outcome, the court would instead bring about the worst.”
32.He then (para 166) listed the fifteen “formidable” arguments in favour of direct contact to which we have already referred. In relation to the second factor identified by the guardian (see paragraph 28 above) he said this (para 172):
“… the father’s approach to contact would not be a reliable, static factor. It would be a variable amongst other variables. I share the view of the Anna Freud Centre and the Guardian that this must be taken into account when considering children’s welfare. It speaks for caution, but no more than that, and if it were the only obstacle to direct contact, it could probably be overcome.”
33.Turning to the “the central question of the reaction of the community if the children were to have direct contact with their father,” the judge (paras 174-176) summarised counsel’s competing submissions before expressing his conclusion as follows (para 177):
“Having considered all the evidence, I am driven to the conclusion that there is a real risk, amounting to a probability, that these children and their mother would be rejected by their community if the children were to have face-to-face contact with their father. I say “driven” because I began the hearing with a strong disposition to find that a community described by Rabbi Oppenheimer as “warm, close and supportive” and living under a religious law that “highlights integrity, respect for others, justice and peace” could tolerate (albeit without approval) these children’s right to and need for a relationship with their father. The evidence that was available before the hearing contained dire predictions, but no actual examples of ostracism. I pointed this out, and this led to a number of new statements being gathered, including significant evidence from the foster carer, Mrs S.”
34.He explained his conclusion (para 178) in twelve sub-paragraphs of which we quote the following:
“(1) It does not depend upon any view of what Jewish law is in relation to transgender, but upon what the community is likely to think it is and act upon. It may be that the humane and progressive views of Rabbi Abel and Mr Bernard will one day gain acceptance in the ultra-Orthodox communities, but I consider that in the present day the community in which the children live and go to school will, rightly or wrongly, defer to the stance described by Rabbi Oppenheimer and the authorities he cites.
…
(3) The cases of Child A and Child B, described by their foster carer Mrs S, show the lengths to which the community is prepared to go, regardless of the justice of the matter or the welfare of the young people (emphasis added).
(4) I cannot distinguish these cases in the way suggested by Ms Ball. They are clear examples of discrimination and victimisation (there is no other apt description) in cases that did not raise anything like as problematic a challenge to community attitudes as the present case (emphasis added).
(5) There is a consistent account from all those within the community of how it will behave …
(6) The father [and his witnesses] all accept to a substantial degree that this is what the community is like. Their thesis is that it can be managed or made to change.
(7) There is, to say the least, evidence that the practices within the community, and in particular its schools, amount to unlawful discrimination against and victimisation of the father and the children because of the father’s transgender status (emphasis added). However, the fact that the practices may be unlawful does not mean that they do not exist.
(8) I was particularly impressed by the evidence of Mrs S, an informed outsider, who compellingly described the reaction of the community to situations of which it disapproves.
(9) I was also struck by Rabbi Oppenheimer’s unyielding defence of the religious and social position as illustrating the stance that can be taken by educated persons.
…
(11) There is no evidence that any person in a position of authority or influence within the community wishes to challenge the behaviour of its members, still less that significant change could be expected within these children’s timescale.
(12) In these circumstances, I do not consider that there is any real prospect of a court order bringing about a beneficial alteration in the attitude of the community towards this family, even to the extent of some relatively limited normalisation of approach. This must be a subject for regret, not only for this family, but also for others facing these issues in fundamentalist communities, for whom this will be a bleak conclusion. However, these considerations cannot deflect the court’s focus from the welfare of these five children.”
35.He continued (paras 182-183):
“182 And here we come to the sad reality. I can see no way in which the children could escape the adult reaction to them enjoying anything like an ordinary relationship with their father. In the final analysis, the gulf between these parents – the mother within the ultra-Orthodox community and the father as a transgender person – is too wide for the children to bridge. They would be taught one thing in their daily lives and asked to do the opposite on repeated, conspicuous forays into the outside world, which they would have to keep quiet about afterwards. The mother, a religiously observant person, would be required to sustain something that she has been taught is religiously wrong. A, aged only 12, is already extremely anxious about contact and now feels protective towards his mother and younger siblings. Embarking on contact would place him under extreme pressure, which would inevitably have a detrimental effect on his development.
183 The children, and the mother on whom they depend, would have no effective support to deal with any of this: on the contrary, they would face suspicion or outright opposition from every quarter. The likely result is that their individual and collective well-being would be undermined to the point where their ability to remain in the community would be put at risk, or at the very least placed under permanent and severe strain, with … “a negative impact on how they function in the widest possible sense both now and in the future”.”
36.He added (para 185):
“These parents decided to bring up their children according to the narrow ways of the community, and they continue to agree about this. That being the case, the priority must be to sustain the children in the chosen way of life, preserving their existing family and social networks and their education. It is not to be forgotten that children have the right to preserve their identity (UNCRC Art.8), something that is a matter of particular pride to these children. Contact carries the clear risk that the children and their mother will become the next casualties in a collision between two unconnecting worlds. The father has already experienced the consequences of that collision, and no one knows better than she does how very painful they can be.”
The Court of Appeal had some very difficult issues to consider
42.It is important at the outset to be clear as to why the court – the State – is involved in the present case. It is because the parents have been unable to resolve their family difficulties themselves, whether with or without the assistance, formal or informal, of the community, and because one of the parents, in this case the father, has sought the assistance of the court. The court cannot decline jurisdiction. And, as judges sitting in a secular court, we must necessarily determine the case according to law, in this instance the law as laid down by Parliament in section 1(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989: see Re G (Education: Religious Upbringing) [2012] EWCA Civ 1233, [2013] 1 FLR 677, paras 92-93.
They conclude that the case had to be sent back for re-hearing (note that they do not say that the father MUST have contact, just that the case needs to be re-heard )
Our reasons for disagreeing with the analysis of the judge
76.In our judgment, Peter Jackson J’s judgment is vulnerable on a number of grounds, all interlinked but which, for purposes of clarity and analysis, it is appropriate to keep distinct.
77.First, the judge, having arrived at his conclusion (judgment, paras 182-188), did not at that point step back and ask himself what, we think, were a number of highly pertinent questions. We have already touched on much of this, but it bears further elaboration. For example, he should, we respectfully suggest, have asked himself: how do I, indeed, how can I, properly accommodate this conclusion with my role as the judicial reasonable parent applying the standards of reasonable men and women today? Can I properly come to a conclusion dictated, as I have found (judgment, paras 34, 178, 181), by the practices of a community which involve discrimination and victimisation and where the community’s focus is as much on itself and the adults as on concern for the children or child welfare? Is it enough simply to proceed on the basis (para 185) that “These parents decided to bring up their children according to the narrow ways of the community, and they continue to agree about this (emphasis added)”? Should I not directly and explicitly challenge the parents and the community with the possibility that, absent a real change of attitude on their part, the court may have to consider drastic steps such as removing the children from the mother’s care, making the children wards of court or even removing the children into public care? Should I not directly and explicitly confront the mother and the community, which professes to be law abiding, with the fact that its behaviour is or may be unlawfully discriminatory? And, not least, how can this outcome meet even the medium let alone the long-term needs and interests of the children? How can this order give proper effect to the reality, whether the community likes it or not, that the father, whether transgender or not, is and always will be the children’s father and, as such, inescapably part of their lives, now, tomorrow and as long as they live? The judge’s omission to address these questions seriously undermines, indeed, in our judgment vitiates, his ultimate conclusion.
78.Secondly, and in saying this we are very conscious of the forensic reality that this part of the case was not much explored before him, and he did not, of course, have the benefit of the submissions we have had from Stonewall and KeshetUK, we are bound to say it is very unfortunate that the judge did not address head on the human rights issues and issues of discrimination which plainly arose. His judgment recites though largely without analysing (judgment, paras 44-51, 53-56) various Convention and statutory provisions to which the father in particular had referred. But apart from the passages we have already set out, the judgment says virtually nothing else about these vitally important issues – no doubt, in this respect, reflecting the limitations of the arguments that had been addressed to the judge. This is a matter we return to below.
79.Thirdly, there is much force in the argument that the judge did not sufficiently explain why, given the basis of the mother’s and the community’s objection to direct contact, it was nonetheless feasible to contemplate indirect contact. Indeed, there is little discussion of the issue in the judgment. The judge recorded the mother’s position as being (judgment, para 9):
“The mother had been opposed to any contact but, having seen the professional advice, now accepts that the children should have indirect contact with their father three times a year. She opposes direct contact of any kind during their childhoods as that, she claims, will lead to the children and herself being ostracised by the community to the extent that they may have to leave it.”
We have already recorded (paragraph 22 above) Rabbi Oppenheimer’s views on the subject. The judge was pressed in argument (judgment, para 174) with what we think was the well-founded point, “It is not clear why indirect contact is said to be acceptable, while direct contact is not.” After all, as we have observed (paragraph 21 above), the concern of the community is to shield its children from knowledge of and exposure to such matters as transgender, and to restrict its children from coming into contact with children who have such knowledge or have been so exposed. Surely, from that point of view, indirect contact must carry with it precisely the same kinds of risk as direct contact. The judge did not address the point, merely saying (judgment, para 188) that, having refused an order for direct contact, “I will instead make an order for indirect contact. I see no reason why this should not take place four times a year.” We emphasise that this is not an argument against indirect contact; on the contrary, it is, it might be thought, an argument in favour of direct contact.
80.Fourthly, we think there is considerable substance in the complaint that, as Ms Ball puts it, the judge “gave up too easily” and decided the question of direct contact then and there and without directing even a single attempt to try and make it work. The judge recognised, by making the specific issue order directing preparation of “staged narratives”, that there was further work to be done by the guardian and the Anna Freud Centre. As Ms Ball asks rhetorically, and in our judgment there is substance in the point, why not defer a final decision on direct contact pending the outcome of that, and perhaps further, work, including work by the GesherEU Support Network about which the judge (judgment, paras 84-89) had heard evidence? Moreover, as we have already observed, why not first directly and explicitly challenge the parents and the community with the possibility that, absent a real change of attitude on their part, the court might have to consider the drastic steps we have referred to? Why not directly and explicitly confront the mother and the community with the fact that its behaviour is or may be unlawfully discriminatory? And why not attempt, even if the prospects may have seemed forlorn, the kind of step by step process adopted by Her Honour Judge Rowe QC in Re X (Number 1: Religious Differences: Schools) [2014] EWFC B230, Re X (Number 2: Orthodox Schools) [2015] EWFC B237, and Re X (Number 3: Division of Religious Festivals) [2016] EWFC B91. In our judgment, the decision which judge came to was indeed premature.
81.It follows that, in substance, the father makes good all three grounds of appeal.
82.The parties were rightly agreed that if this was our decision it would not be appropriate for us to determine what the outcome should be. The matter will have to go back for a further hearing which, in the circumstances, will be before Hayden J. Precisely what the scope of that hearing should be will be a matter for the judge. We do not anticipate a rehearing of the very full evidence on the religious views which Peter Jackson J heard but otherwise leave the scope of the evidence at the rehearing to the judge. That said, we need to make explicit what ought to be clear enough already. What we say about the community is based on the evidence adduced by the parties to these proceedings and on the findings of the judge. The community are not parties and have had no opportunity to make representations. Our observations about the community should be read on that basis.
83.In view of the fact that, for the reasons set out earlier, we propose to allow this appeal and remit the case to the family court for reconsideration, it is unnecessary for us to address at length either the issues of equality law which may arise or the issues under Article 9 of the Convention. However, we hope that it will assist the family court in its reconsideration of the case if we set out some of the issues that may have to be addressed, dealing first with equality law and then with Article 9.
The Court of Appeal then did address the equality issues
95.It is well-established on authority that discrimination which is motivated by a religious belief (however sincerely held and even if the discrimination is mandated by that religious belief) does not make discrimination under the Equality Act lawful: see Regina (E) v Governing Body of JFS and another (United Synagogue and others intervening) [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728, para 35 (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC) and para 65 (Lady Hale JSC). See also Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] UKHL 15, [2005] 2 AC 246, para 58, where Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe cited with approval what had been said by Mason ACJ and Brennan J in the High Court of Australia in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 120, at 136:
“Religious conviction is not a solvent of legal obligation.”
96.In the present case we are anxious that no assumption should wrongly or unfairly be made that any school attended by the children concerned has acted unlawfully or will do so in the future. As we have already mentioned, if a school were to ostracise a pupil on the ground of his or her father’s transgender status, that would be likely to amount at least to the imposition of a “detriment” on that child which is unlawful under the Equality Act. The courts of this country expect schools to comply with their legal duties under that Act as well as generally.
97.Nevertheless, we are equally concerned that, should there be action by a school which is unlawful under the Equality Act, the courts of this country should not, as a matter of public policy, simply treat it as a factor to be weighed against permitting direct contact between the father and children. To do so would, in our view, be contrary to the rule of law.
98.Accordingly, when this case returns to the family court, we would expect the judge to consider very carefully:
i) whether there would in fact be unlawful conduct even in the face of an order of the court granting the father direct contact with her children; and
ii) to what extent such unlawful conduct should be given weight in the balance to be conducted in assessing what are the best interests of those children
….
115.When the present case returns to the family court we anticipate that the court will wish to scrutinise with care the suggested justification for the apparent discrimination which the father faces on the ground of her transgender status, not least to ensure that the court itself does not breach its duty under section 6 of the HRA.
What about the issues about religious discrimination? What guidance do the Court of Appeal give in that regard?
130.In the absence of any further finding by the judge about the nature of the debate on transgender in the Charedi community, we must proceed on the basis that the views which Rabbi Oppenheimer attributed to the Charedi community are the community’s views and that their actions to exclude the children would be an expression of those beliefs. That approach then puts their religious beliefs at their highest.
131.If the matter has in due course to be determined by the court, we would take the view that in the light of developments in Strasbourg jurisprudence there would be force in Ms Ball’s submissions that the community’s beliefs, which resulted in the ready exclusion of young children from the rest of the community, did not meet the criteria set by the Strasbourg court for a religious belief that was entitled to protection under Article 9 (see paragraphs 119 and following above). In that situation, we would expect the leaders of the community to help the community to adopt a more flexible attitude to their beliefs as they might affect the children.
132.The mother and children also have their rights under Article 9, but they are outside the discussion in these paragraphs. Clearly, the courts must likewise not restrict their rights to any greater extent than that permitted by Article 9(2). The courts have a statutory obligation under section 6 of the HRA to act compatibly with the Convention.
133.We can, therefore, return to the question whether, if this court were ultimately to make an order for direct contact, that would violate the rights of the community under Article 9.
134.It is not appropriate for us to give any final view in answer to this question as that stage has not yet been reached. Provisionally, however, it seems to us that, if a court were to make an order granting the father some form of direct contact to the children, it would have to have concluded, after the most careful consideration with the parties, that that course was in the best interests of the children. If this involves any interference with any rights of the community to manifest their religious beliefs, we doubt that there would be any violation of the community’s rights under Article 9. This is because the court, as an organ of the State, will on this basis have decided that a restriction that may be involved of their right to express their religious beliefs serves the legitimate aim of protecting the children’s rights to have contact with their father and thus to enjoy family life with him, which rights are vital to their well-being. As the President held in Re G, para 43:
“In matters of religion, as in all other aspects of a child’s upbringing, the interests of the child are the paramount consideration.”
135.In making that decision, the restriction under consideration would meet the requirements of being prescribed by law. It is part of the court’s jurisdiction to make orders regulating parents’ access to their children. It would be proportionate because it would not be made immediately on the father’s application, but only after a period of further reflection in which the court has had time to consider further evidence if it wished so to do.
So whilst the Court of Appeal say that they have not reached a conclusion about the merits of the case other than that it should be re-heard, they drop the heaviest of hints that if the trial Judge finds himself in this dilemma
“156 The children will suffer serious harm if they are deprived of a relationship with their father.
157 The children would suffer serious harm if they were excluded from the normal life of the community.”
Then the religious community are going to be the ones to lose out.
Very difficult case. Just in case the first hint was not over enough, the Court of Appeal hire a very large crane and use it to lower a heavier hint into position
Concluding observations
136.It may very well be when the matter has been further considered that there is room for some compromise position. As we have made clear, we consider that, under Strasbourg jurisprudence, each side has to be prepared to compromise. That means that it must be ready to make some concession, and the compromise must be one which is appropriate in a plural, democratic society governed by the rule of law.
137.Moreover, by the time any direct contact takes place, subject to the further directions given in these proceedings, these children are likely (as mentioned) to have had assistance of the highest standard in coming to terms with their father’s decision. We envisage that the assistance will make them aware of the need to be sensitive to the views of others, including (as at present) their own community, which is unable as we understand it to accommodate changes of identity within their own interpretation of their religious laws. These are difficult areas for the holders of faith, which underscores the need for broadmindedness and tolerance in our diverse society.
138.In our judgment, the best interests of these children seen in the medium to longer term is in more contact with their father if that can be achieved. So strong are the interests of the children in the eyes of the law that the courts must, with respect to the learned judge, persevere. As the law says in other contexts, “never say never”. To repeat, the doors should not be closed at this early stage in their lives.
suesspiciousminds 
Absolutely the right decision on this one. The Father cannot reasonably expect the children to lose everything that they know, their entire community overnight (in the same way adopted children do) just because s/he decided to live as a woman. I’m surprised a social worker didn’t castigate him/her for putting his/her own needs above the children. but then that wouldn’t be politically correct. S/he made his/her choice, s/he must have known that s/he would end up making sacrifices when s/he decided to sacrifice the schlong.
So the father should live a lie in order to keep a religious group, who are ready to turn on him rather than support his family, happy?
Your priorities are warped
No, i don’t think that the Father should have to live a lie. I have my own lived experience of ‘coming out’, the reason that coming out is such a momentous step, is that there is a huge potential for relationship losses. I don’t agree that these children should be kept from their Father based on a book which tells people how to live their lives, but…………… I also believe this Father is truly putting himself/herself first by insisting on contact that would see them be shunned from their community, their entire lives, potentially school etc. If me being a member of the LGBTQ community in any way affected the children around me to that extent, I would self sacrifice my relationship with them so that their lives were not turned upside down.
Given that LGBTQ community has one of the most powerful lobby groups in the world, it is highly likely that contact will be enforced at some point, and these children will lose everything that is normal to them. I wonder how that will affect their relationship with their Father? So totally worth it eh?
I think if there’s any hope in this case it will be from both sides of it realising that getting everything THEY want will be painful for the children and working to reduce that pain and accepting that neither of the adults will get exactly what they want
Whilst I am here………… If sin was not a valid currency in the family courts, how else would children be adopted when their parents haven’t actually abused or neglected them? They’d have to come up with real evidence, and no, I don’t class pyschobabble from people whose only source of income is the family courts as evidence.
Wrong! Wrong wrong wrong!
The father and the children are being punished because the father is who he is and does not live in denial, a basic human right. This is punishment without crime!
The court could always have given the father full residency, allowing the mother to continue following her faith, seeing as its more important than the welfare of her children.
If my catholic community turned on my children like this, they’d be forgotten in a heartbeat, my children come first and if I have to go to hell for that, then so be it, they come before anyone or anything it’s that simple!
Your comment about every reader immediately being struck with certainty as to the right answer certainly seems to resonate in the comments! I was not so sure. I deplore people that cast others out over things they have no control over, but Peter Jackson J was probably onto something when he talked about having to apply to law to the social world the children actually live in as opposed to the world they should live in. I wonder if in their strident ‘hints’ the Court of Appeal might actually cause the children harm in and of themselves because of the inevitable reaction.
The only alternative would be a transfer of residence and casting off the ultra-Orthadox community altogether. I’m not sure that’s what anybody would really want or be good for them.
Yes, I rather feel that the Court of Appeal had an idealistic view of how these children’s world should be, rather than how it would be
Having worked with this community I think that Peter Jackson J was absolutely accurate in his summation of how the community would respond to the children having contact with their father. I don’t condone their responses in anyway, but if contact was enforced they would be alienated entirely from their friends and other services in the community. Given that the children’s current experiences are totally defined within the limits of this community, either decision will have a world changing (for them) impact. It really is a tough judicial call.
I have an enormously high opinion of the President’s common sense but in this case I think Peter Jackson J got it right. By agreeing to leave the children within a religiously fundamentalist community the Appellant must have realised that direct contact was going to be enormously problematic, and I’m afraid that all choices have consequences with which the Appellant must live. It may not be a PC thing to say but in deciding to transition the children’s needs were not of paramount importance to him.
I had far more respect and sympathy for the woman a few years back who chose to take her daughters out of a Charedi community so they could have a better life. It was one of the two cases discussed in the novel “The Children Act”, incidentally
PS The case I was thinking of was Re G [2012]EWCA Civ 1233 incidentally a judgment of the President as Munby LJ.
My immediate reaction to the case was that I didn’t like that an intolerant religious community had got their own way, but as I read into it, I just don’t see how the Court of Appeal could conclude that Peter Jackson J got it WRONG. He could have decided the case the other way, because it was very difficult and there wasn’t a perfect solution but what he did wasn’t WRONG. I don’t like the reductionist approach of treating this case like a battle between religion and gender politics. It ultimately is about what life will be for the children under either outcome
It remains to be seen of course, but I feel these children will grow to resent their mother and the community who shunned their father.
They will blame them for the loss of a meaningful relationship with the daddy they love, when they realise they have choices.
Religion is never unconditional, the parental love is, it’s a worry that if they see things the way I do, they’ll become bitter vengeful people for being forced to break their bond with their father, for no particular reason.
This case does not focus on what’s best for the child for the rest of their lives, it sits with the here and now.
I speak from experience, however as my father died a young man, there was no rebuilding. The damage caused is unrepairable beyond words. That powerful word ‘why’ is never far away from the lips, knowing it can never be answered.
In my opinion this judgement is nothing short of severe child abuse.
God that was thrilling. Read the whole first judgement as directed by the second. Was in full agreement with Peter Jackson by the end.
Do you mind sharing your reasons for being in agreement? I ask because I’m struggling to see how this is in the best interest of the child for the rest of their natural life/as an adult
Did you read the full first judgement? If you read as per the analysis provided in the blog post that the appeal judgement is based upon how the world should be as opposed to how it is, it felt like based upon the balance of probability the harm to be caused by the ostrasication of the children by the community, at this point in their delevopment would be more harmful than no contact with their father for this period of time.
Is that awful? Yes it is god awful. Absolutely horrendous. But the judge quite eloquently in my opinion stated why he was having to choose between two forms of significant harm and he could not see a midpoint.
The court has no power over the individuals within a specific community and it was made clear the family would be ostracised. Therefore, the order for me made sense, sadly so.
When I started reading I was completely against it but I felt that the evidence did stack up…
I don’t like it, but I agreed with the judge that I could not see any other way.
Thankyou for your reply.
I guess for me, parental alienation is the biggest sin, oddly one the courts come down very heavily on parents over, yet that is exactly what they have done.
The irony.
a complex and sad response to a complex and sad case
Since the Appellant specifically agreed that the children should remain within that community he had to be the one who accepted the consequences.
I apologise for going round in circles here, but, consequences for what exactly? This is not a choice for the father, but it is for the mother. She is a horrible parent
Do you perhaps think it was a choice for the father to have married and fathered five children? I accept that how F felt about gender beyond control, but F did expose M and those children to consequences that none of them signed up for
I don’t think there’s a right answer here btw