The judicial resolution of disputes involving children and religion

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 117-148

  Mumford, S E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009283070     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300061583     Document Type: Article

References (152)

1. ReR (A Minor) (Residence: Religion) [1993] 2 F.L.R. 163.
2. Voung v. Young (1994) 108 D.L.R. (4th) 193
3. and DP. v. C.S. (1994) 108 D.L.R. (4th) 287.
4. Re N (a minor) (unrep.) 5 May 1994.
5. Re K (a minor) (unrep.) 28 Mar. 1996.
6. Re K (a minor) (unrep.) 19 Jan. 1994.
7. Young, unrep., at p.252.
8. [1931] K.B. 317,336.
9. Pope Pius XI, Casti Conubii 1930, 8.85.
10. House of Bishops of the Church of England in Canada, Mixed Marriages (1950), p 5.
11. Further assistance could be gleaned from Kalman Packouz's book. How to Stop an Intermarriage: A Practical Guide for Parents (1976)
12. cited in P. R. Spickard, Mixed Blood-Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth Century America (1989).
13. Spickard, idem, p.184.
14. Catholic Education Service, London, 1997.
15. In Al-Okaidi v. Al Okaidi (unrep.) 28 June 1983.
16. There are eg. 10,000 converts to Judaism each year in the US, most of them women about to marry Jewish husbands: J. Petsonk and J. Remsen, The Intermarriage Handbook (1988).
17. A. I. Gordon. Intermarriage (1964). p.90.
18. In re Carroll, Intermarriage, at p.357.
19. See e.g. In re Scanlan (1888) 40 Ch.D. 200
20. In re McGrath [1893] 1 Ch. 143.
21. Shelley v. Westbrooke (1817) Jac. 266.
22. Wellesley's Case (1827) 38 Eng.Rep. 236
23. (1828) 4 Eng.Rep. 1078.
24. E.g. in McGrath, Eng.Rep.
25. See, for example the Court of Appeal in Roughley v. Rottghley [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.
26. Fam Law. at p. 179.
27. Idem, p.180.
28. Idem, p.l78
29. Idem, p.165.
30. Idem, at p.54.
31. Federal Law of 1985 on the Religious Education of Children (re-enactment of the Law of 15 July 1921), Art2(l), quoted at idem, p.53.
32. Idem, p.60.
33. (1990) 75 D.LR. (4th) 46.
34. Idem. p.136.
35. Idem. p.14O
36. Quoted in D.P. v. C.S. Idem. at p.292.
37. Quoted at idem, p.322.
38. Quoted at idem, p.294.
39. Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1979).
40. Young, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, at p. 228.
41. Idem, p.273.
42. This conclusion is shared by Rex Ahdar. “Religion as a Factor in Custody and Access Disputes” (1996) 10 Inul. Law, Policy and the Family 177,178.
43. See e.g. D.P. v. CS. Inul. Law, Policy and the Family.
44. Wright v. Wright (1981) 11 Fam. Law 79
45. Jones v. Jones (CA. unrep.) 2 Oct. 1981.
46. Re B and G (Minors: Custody) [1985] F.L.R. 493.
47. Re R, F.L.R., at p.176.
48. Idem, p.178.
49. Re H (A Minor) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 F.L.R. 253.
50. However, in Re N, F.L.R, 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.
51. F.L.R, n.41.
52. Idem, p.500.
53. Anthony Bradney discusses many of these cases, arriving at similar conclusions, in Religions, Rights and Laws (1993).
54. likewise, Carolyn Hamilton, in Family, Law and Religion (1995)
55. Ahdar, Family, Law and Religion, conclude that the judges' avowed neutrality is not always reflected in case law.
56. J. v. C [1969] 1 All E.R. 788.
57. See also the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. Custody after Divorce (1997), p.74
58. Eekelaar, “Children and Divorce: Some Further Data” [1982] Oxford J.Leg.Stud. 63.
59. Hewison v. Hewison (1977) 7 Fam. Law 207.
60. Buckley v. Buckley (1973) 3 Fam. Law 106.
61. Idem, p.l07.
62. McQuillan v. McQuillan (1975) 21 R.F.L. 394 (Ontario Supreme Court).
63. (1975) 119 SJ. 590.
64. SJ.
65. Murray v. Murray CA, unrep. 29 June 1988.
66. Ahdar. unrep., at p. 182.
67. unrep.
68. McNeil v. McNeil (1989) 20 R.F.L. (3d) 52 (B.C Supreme Court).
69. Re S (Minors) (Access: Religious Upbringing) [1992] 2 F.LR. 313.
70. 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.LR. 622
71. Re V (Residence: Review) [1995] 1 F.LR. 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.
72. B. v. W (Wardship: Appeal) [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1041,1055 (per Lord Scarman)
73. upheld in G v. G (Minors: Custody Appeal) [1985] F.LR. 894.
74. F.LR. at p.179.
75. D.P. v. C.S., F.LR, at p 325.
76. F.LR.
77. (1974) 4 Fam. Law 190.
78. Kaasimkae v. Kaatimkae CA, unrep., 20 Dec 1985.
79. unrep.
80. unrep., at pp.171–172.
81. unrep., at p.51.
82. Harris v. Harris 343 So.2d 762 (1977). (Thecase was ultimately resolved by a flnding 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.)
83. Bainham, “Religion. Human Rights and the Fitness of Parents” [1994] C.L-J. 39.40.
84. Anthony Bradney. C.L-J., 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.
85. Hamilton, C.L-J., at p. 186.
86. Bainham. C.L-J., at p.41.
87. See Mandla v. Let [1983] 1 All E.R. 1062.
88. Young, All E.R., at p.263.
89. 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.Mkh.J. L.Reform 879.
90. This point was made by the court in Re Glavas 121 N.Y.S. 2d 12 (1953).
91. N.Y.S. 2d, at p. 143.
92. [1995] Education L.Rep. 1.
93. Elliot v. Elliot CA, unrep., 4 Dec 1984.
94. Barret v. Barret (1988) 18 R.F.L. (3d) 186 (Nfld. Sup. Ct.).
95. Elbaz v. Elbaz (1980) 114 D.L.R. (3d) 116.
96. D.L.R.
97. [1963] 3 All E.R. 874.
98. [1968] 3 A11 E.R. 170.
99. Gallagher v. Gallagher (1985) 48 R.F.L. (2d) 249.
100. R.F.L.
101. Avitan v. Avium (1991) 38 R.F.L. (3d) 382 (Ontario).
102. [1970] 1 Q.B. 357,369.
103. Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech A.H.A. [1986] A.C. 112.
104. A.C.
105. A.C.
106. Cretney and Masson. Principles of Family Law (6th edn. 1997). p.730.
107. (1873) 8 Ch.App. 622,636.
108. 454 N.Y.S. (2d) 140,142 (1982).
109. N.Y.S., at p.12.
110. Goldstein et al, idem. p 38. would permit even this.
111. Gunn v. Gunn (1975) 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 159.
112. Jaillet v. Jaillet (1988) 91 N.B.R. (2d) 351.
113. Fougere v. Fougere (1987) 6 R.F.L. (3d) 314.
114. [1981] Fam. 31.
115. Fam.
116. Fam. at p.45.
117. See e.g. Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 F.L.R. 124
118. Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 F.L.R. 314.
119. But cf. Re D (Contact Reasons for Refusal) [1997] 2 FJ-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.
120. J. S. Wallerstein and J. B. Kelly. Surviving the Break-up (1980), p.215
121. E. M. Hethe-rington. M. Cox and R. Cox, “Divorced Fathers” (1976) 25 The Family Co-ordinator 417–428.
122. However, F. F. Furstenberg and A. J. Cherlin allege that more recent observational studies have not found the same correlation: Divided Families (1981). p.72.
123. W. F. Hodges, Interventions for Children of Divorce (1991).
124. Re M (Contact: Welfare Test) [1995] 1 F.L.R. 274.
125. F.L.R.
126. F.L.R.
127. The Tuna, 12 Feb. 1997.
128. (1984) 38 R.F.L. (2d) 293.
129. Fisher v. Fisher 324 N.W. 2d 582 (1982).
130. Smith v.smith (1989) 2 N.S.R. (2d) 204.
131. 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 T. Eastland (Ed.), Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court (1983), p.471.
132. Borris v. Borris (1991) 37 R.F.L. (3d) 339.
133. Burnham v. Bumham 304 N.W. 2d 58 (1981).
134. N.W. 2d.
135. Felton v. Felton 418 N.E. 2d 606 (1981).
136. Quiner v. Quiner 59 Cal.Reptr. 503 (1967).
137. M. D. Evans, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (1997), p.260.
138. “Riding the Fences; Courts, Charter Rights and Family Law” (1991) 9 CanJ.Fam.L. 55,90.
139. Morris v. Morris 412 A.2d 139 (1979).
140. Munoz v. Munoz 489 P.2d 1133 (1971).
141. Hockey v. Hockey (1989) 69 O.R. (2d) 338.
142. O.R.
143. O.R.
144. Re B (Minors: Access) [1992] 1 F.L.R. 142.
145. The same point was made in Kaasimkae, F.L.R.
146. and Al-Okaidi, F.L.R.
147. As suggested by Goldstein et al, F.L.R., at pp.53 et seq.
148. E.g. S v. S; W v. Official Solicitor [1970] 3 All E.R. 107.
149. This term is used in contrast to that of “significant harm” criticised by Carolyn Hamilton, All E.R., at p.214, as unduly favouring parents' rights at the expense of their children.
150. Osier v. Osier 410 A.2d 1027 (1980).
151. Ledoux v. Ledoux 452 N.W. 2d 1 (1990).
152. Zummo v. Zummo 574 A.2d 1130 (1990).