Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:05:04.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Judicial Resolution of Disputes Involving Children and Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

S. E. Mumford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the past few years, the English Court of Appeal has ruled in a variety of cases involving disputes about the religious upbringing of children following the separation or divorce of their parents. Many of these cases have not been reported, although the most significant of them, Re R, is well known to family lawyers. In other jurisdictions the European Court of Human Rights in Hoffmann and the Supreme Court of Canada in Young and D.P. v. C.S. have also heard important cases in which a significant factor before the court was the influence of religious beliefs and practices on the children of those who professed them. This article is the result of a study of these and other cases from England, the United States and Canada in order to investigate the reasoning and the trends in judicial decision-making in cases involving children and religion.

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 117 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Re R (A Minor) (Residence: Religion) [1993] 2 F.L.R. 163.Google Scholar

2. Hoffmann v. Austria. Series A/2253.

3. Young v. Young (1994) 108Google ScholarD.L.R. (4th) 193 and D.P. v. C.S. (1994) 108 D.L.R. (4th) 287.Google Scholar

4. Re N (a minor) (unrep.) 5 May 1994.Google Scholar

5. Re K (a minor) (unrep.) 28 Mar. 1996.Google Scholar

6. Re K (a minor) (unrep.) 19 Jan. 1994.Google Scholar

7. Young, supra n.3, at p.252.Google Scholar

8. [1931] K.B. 317, 336.Google Scholar

9. Pope Pius XI, Casti Conubii 1930, s.85.

10. House of Bishops of the Church of England in Canada, Mixed Marriages (1950), p.5.Google Scholar

11. Further assistance could be gleaned from Kalman Packouz's book. How to Stop an Intermarriage: A Practical Guide for Parents (1976)Google Scholar(cited in Spickard, P. R., Mixed Blood—Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth Century America (1989)).Google Scholar

12. Spickard, idem, p.184.

13. Catholic Education Service, London, 1997.

14. In Al-Okaidi v. Al Okaidi (unrep.) 28 June 1983.

15. There are e.g. 10,000 converts to Judaism each year in the US, most of them women about to marry Jewish husbands: Petsonk, J. and Remsen, J., The Intermarriage Handbook (1988).Google Scholar

16. Gordon, A. I., Intermarriage (1964). p.90.Google Scholar

17. In re Carroll, supra n.8. at p.357.Google Scholar

18. See e.g. In re Scanlan (1888) 40 Ch.D. 200Google Scholar; In re McGrath [1893] 1 Ch. 143.Google Scholar

19. Act of 1699:11 and 12 Wm. III c.4(7).

20. Shelley v. Westbrooke (1817) Jac. 266.Google Scholar

21. Wellesley's Case (1827) 38 Eng.Rep. 236Google Scholar; (1828) 4 Eng.Rep. 1078.Google Scholar

22. E.g. in McGrath. supra n.18.

23. See, for example the Court of Appeal in Roughley v. Roughley [1973] Fam Law 91, in which the trial judge misdirected himself by placing too much importance on the question of the child's religious instruction.Google Scholar

24. Supra n.1. at p. 179.Google Scholar

25. Idem, p.180.

26. Idem, p.178.

27. Idem, p.165.

28. Supra n.2, at p.54.Google Scholar

29. Federal Law of 1985 on the Religious Education of Children (re-enactment of the Law of 15 July 1921), Art.2(1), quoted at idem, p.53.

30. Idem, p.60.

31. (1990) 75 D.L.R.(4th) 46.Google Scholar

32. Idem, p.136.

33. Idem, p.140.

34. Quoted in D.P. v. C.S., supra n.3. at p.292.Google Scholar

35. Quoted at idem, p.322.

36. Quoted at idem, p.294.

37. Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1979).Google Scholar

38. Young, supra n.3. at p. 228.Google Scholar

39. Idem, p.273.

40. This conclusion is shared by Rex Ahdar. “Religion as a Factor in Custody and Access Disputes” (1996) 10 Int. J. Law, Policy and the Family 177, 178.Google Scholar

41. See e.g. D.P. v. C.S., supra n.3. Wright v. Wright (1981) 11 Fam. Law 79Google Scholar and Jones v. Jones (CA. unrep.) 2 10. 1981.Google Scholar

42. Re B and G (Minors: Custody) [1985] F.L.R. 493.Google Scholar

43. Re R, supra n.1, at p.176.Google Scholar

44. Idem, p.178.

45. Re H (A Minor) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 F.L.R. 253.Google Scholar

46. However, in Re N, supra n.4, the court left it to “the good sense” of the Jehovah's Witness mother to decide how much to involve her 14-year-old son in her religious activities.

47. Supra, n.41.

48. Idem, p.500.

49. Anthony Bradney discusses many of these cases, arriving at similar conclusions, in Religions, Rights and Laws (1993).Google ScholarLikewise, Carolyn, Hamilton, in Family, Law and Religion (1995) and Ahdar, op. cit supra n.39, conclude that the judges' avowed neutrality is not always reflected in case law.Google Scholar

50. J. v. C. [1969] 1 All E.R. 788.Google ScholarSee also the Oxford Centre for Socio-Lega Studies. Custody after Divorce (1997), p.74Google Scholar and Eekelaar, , “Children and Divorce: Some Further Data” [1982] Oxford J.Leg.Stud 63.Google Scholar

51. Hewison v. Hewison (1977) 7 Fam. Law 207.Google Scholar

52. Buckley v. Buckley (1973) 3 Fam. Law 106.Google Scholar

53. Idem, p. 107.

54. McQuillan v. McQuillan (1975) 21 R.F.L. 394 (Ontario Supreme Court).Google Scholar

55. (1975) 119 S.J. 590.Google Scholar

56. Supra n.14.

57. Murray v. Murray CA, unrep. 29 June 1988.Google Scholar

58. Ahdar. op. cit. supra n.39, at p. 182.Google Scholar

59. Supra n.45.

60. McNeil v. McNeil (1989) 20 R.F.L. (3d) 52 (B.C Supreme Court).Google Scholar

61. Re S (Minors) (Access: Religious Upbringing) [1992] 2 F.L.R. 313.Google Scholar

62. In English law there is a principle that the court is required to give reasons if it chooses to go against the recommendation of a welfare officer Re CB (Access: Attendance of Court Welfare Officer) [1995] 1 F.L.R. 622Google Scholar; Re V (Residence: Review) [1995] 1 F.L.R. 1010. Of course, it must be noted that many cases do not involve a welfare officer and matters are often resolved at an early stage in a directions appointment, with only minimal investigation by the judge.Google Scholar

63. B. v. W (Wardship: Appeal) [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1041, 1055 (per Lord Scarman)Google Scholar: upheld in G v. G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] F.L.R. 894.Google Scholar

64. Supra n.1, at p.179.Google Scholar

65. D.P. v. C.S., supra n.3, at p.325.Google Scholar

66. Supra n.63.

67. (1974) 4 Fam. Law 190.Google Scholar

68. Kaasimkae v. Kaasimkae CA, unrep 20 Dec 1985.Google Scholar

69. Supra n.61.

70. Supra n.1, at pp.171–172.Google Scholar

71. Supra n.2. at p.51.Google Scholar

72. Harris v. Harris 343 So.2d 762 (1977).Google Scholar (The case was ultimately resolved by a finding of fact that the girl's mother had never felt called to handle snakes and that the only snake the child was likely to encounter in church was one that was taken in a locked cage and kept on the piano throughout the service.)

73. Bainham, , “Religion. Human Rights and the Fitness of Parents” [1994] C.L.J. 39, 40.Google ScholarAnthony, Bradney. op. cit. supra n.48, at p. 49. calls it a “peculiar kind of neutrality” that allows judges to say that they are not concerned with the theological soundness of a faith, but nevertheless to deprive some parents of the right to bring up their children in accordance with their religion because of that religion.Google Scholar

74. Hamilton, op. cit. supra n.49, at p.186.Google Scholar

75. Bainham, op. cit. supra n.73, at p.41.Google Scholar

76. See Mandla v. Lee [1983] 1 All E.R. 1062.Google Scholar

77. Young, supra n.3, at p.263.Google Scholar

78. Carl, Schneider makes this point, advocating the use of a test based on behaviour, irrespective of any “religious” motivation behind it “Religion and Child Custody” (1991) 25 U.Mich.J. L.Reform 879.Google Scholar

79. This point was made by the court in Re Glavas 121 N.Y.S. 2d 12 (1953).Google Scholar

80. Op. cit. supra n.49, at p.143.Google Scholar

81. [1995] Education L.Rep. 1.Google Scholar

82. Elliot v. Elliot CA, unrep., 4 Dec 1984.Google Scholar

83. Barret v. Barret (1988) 18 R.F.L. (3d) 186 (Nfld. Sup. Ct.).Google Scholar

84. Elbaz v. Elbaz (1980) 114 D.L.R. (3d) 116.Google Scholar

85. Supra n.50.

86. [1963] 3 All E.R. 874.Google Scholar

87. [1968] 3 A11 E.R. 170.Google Scholar

88. Gallagher v. Gallagher (1985) 48 R.F.L. (2d) 249.Google Scholar

89. Supra n.5.

90. Avitan v. Avitan (1991) 38 R.F.L. (3d) 382 (Ontario).Google Scholar

91. [1970] 1 Q.B. 357, 369.Google Scholar

92. Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech A.H.A. [1986] A.C. 112.Google Scholar

93. Supra n.41.

94. Supra n.82.

95. That is, until the same welfare officer changed her mind and said she felt the boys actually preferred to be with their mother.

96. Cretney, and Masson, . Principles of Family Law (6th edn. 1997). p.730.Google Scholar

97. (1873) 8 Ch.App. 622, 636.Google Scholar

98. 454 N.Y.S. (2d) 140, 142 (1982).Google Scholar

99. The terms “custody” and “access”, whilst still in use in some jurisdictions, have been replaced in English law by the similar concepts of “residence” and “contact” (Children Act 1989).

100. Op. cit. supra n.36, at p.12.Google Scholar

101. Goldstein et al. idem. p.38. would permit even this.

102. Gunn v. Gunn (1975) 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 159.Google Scholar

103. Jaillet v. Jaillet (1988) 91 N.B.R. (2d) 351.Google Scholar

104. Fougere v. Fougere (1987) 6 R.F.L. (3d) 314.Google Scholar

105. [1981]Fam.31.Google Scholar

106. Supra n.56.

107. Supra n.105. at p.45.Google Scholar

108. See e.g. Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 F.L.R. 124Google Scholar; Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 F.L.R. 314.Google ScholarBut cf. Re D (Contact Reasons for Refusal) [1997] 2 F.L.R. 48 in which the mother had “genuinely and rationally held fears” for herself and for the child about the consequences of a contact order for the father.Google Scholar

109. E.g. s.16(10) of the Canada Divorce Act. See also the reference in the UK Family Law Act 1996. s.11 (4)(c). to the “general principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by (i) his having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him”.

110. Wallerstein, J. S. and Kelly, J. B.. Surviving the Break-up (1980). p.215Google Scholar: Hetherington, E. M.. Cox, M. and Cox, R., “Divorced Fathers” (1976) 25 The Family Co-ordinator 417–428.Google ScholarHowever. Furstenberg, F. F. and Cherlin, A. J. allege that more recent observational studies have not found the same correlation: Divided Families (1981). p.72.Google Scholar

111. Hodges, W. F., Interventions for Children of Divorce (1991).Google Scholar

112. Re M (Contact: Welfare Test) [1995] 1 F.L.R. 274.Google Scholar

113. Supra n.108.

114. Ibid.

115. The Times, 12 Feb. 1997.Google Scholar

116. (1984) 38 R.F.L. (2d) 293.Google Scholar

117. Fisher v. Fisher 324 N.W. 2d 582 (1982).Google Scholar

118. Smith v. Smith (1989) 2 N.S.R. (2d) 204.Google Scholar

119. Or those held by the liberally minded “elite” of judges and legislators. Mary Ann Glendon suggests there may be a disparity between the views of this group and those of the majority concerning the relative importance of the freedom of religion: “Religion and the Court; A New Beginning?”, in Eastland, T. (Ed.), Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court (1983), p.471.Google Scholar

120. Borris v. Borris (1991) 37 R.F.L. (3d) 339.Google Scholar

121. Burnham v. Bumham 304 N.W. 2d 58 (1981).Google Scholar

122. Supra n.67.

123. Felton v. Felton 418 N.E. 2d 606 (1981).Google Scholar

124. It is, however, questionable whether, if a family omitted to celebrate Christmas because they were Jewish, or parents took the view, based on the study of child psychology, that it was not in children's interests to encourage belief in non-existent rabbits, these choices would still provoke judicial concern.

125. Quiner v. Quiner 59 Cal.Reptr. 503 (1967).Google Scholar

126. Evans, M. D., Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (1997), p.260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

127. “Riding the Fences; Courts, Charter Rights and Famiry Law” (1991) 9 Can.J.Fam.L. 55, 90.Google Scholar

128. Morris v. Morris 412 A.2d 139 (1979).Google Scholar

129. Munoz v. Munoz 489 P.2d 1133 (1971).Google Scholar

130. Hockey v. Hockey (1989) 69 O.R. (2d) 338.Google Scholar

131. Supra n.5.

132. Supra n.102.

133. Re B (Minors: Access) [1992] 1 F.L.R. 142. The same point was made in Kaasimkae, supra n.68 and Al-Okaidi, supra n.14.Google Scholar

134. As suggested by Goldstein et al, op. cit. supra n.37, at pp.53et seq.Google Scholar

136. This term is used in contrast to that of “significant harm” criticised by Carolyn Hamilton, op. cit. supra n.49, at p.214, as unduly favouring parents' rights at the expense of their children.Google Scholar

137. Osier v. Osier 410 A.2d 1027 (1980).Google Scholar

138. Ledoux v. Ledoux 452 N.W. 2d 1 (1990).Google Scholar

139. Zummo v. Zummo 574 A.2d 1130 (1990).Google Scholar