The petitioner, whose child had died aged six months, sought a faculty permitting the introduction of a memorial, the central section of which would incorporate a detailed teddy bear embracing its top and side. The grave was situated in a part of the churchyard primarily used for children's and babies' burials. A number of memorials that did not comply with the churchyard regulations had already been introduced, though there were no other teddy-bear-shaped memorials. Despite recognising the very strong pastoral considerations involved, the chancellor held that the petition had to be decided in a wider context. Previous petitions seeking to introduce teddy-bear-shaped memorials in the diocese had been refused. If the proposed memorial were allowed, not only would that be a precedent for other such memorials but other grieving parents elsewhere in the diocese would be hurt and aggrieved by the decision. The chancellor applied the reasoning of Tattersall Ch in Re St Andrew, Dacre (2011) 13 Ecc LJ 119: an applicant's own assessment of what was a worthy memorial could not weigh heavily in determining what should be permitted; otherwise there could be no effective system of regulation of memorials in churchyards. A memorial could not be justified simply because it was said that it would meet the pastoral needs of the deceased's family. The petition was accordingly refused, the chancellor indicating that he would permit a small, coloured engraving of a teddy bear in one of the bottom corners of a normally shaped memorial, were the petitioner to seek permission for that. [Alexander McGregor]
No CrossRef data available.