J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4 (30 January 2017)

J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4 (30 January 2017)

Direct contact between the transgender parent and the children is not ordered because the risk of severe social ostracism and harm to the children's welfare within their ultra-Orthodox community outweighs the benefits of direct contact at this time. Indirect contact is ordered as being in the children's best...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWFC 4
Parties
Applicant: J; Respondent: B; Respondents: The Children
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (contact/residence) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for direct contact refused; indirect contact ordered.
Legal Topics
Child Contact, Transgender Rights, Religious Community and Family Law, Discrimination, Welfare of the Child
Family Law Equality Law Human Rights Child Contact Transgender Rights Religious Community and Family Law Discrimination Welfare of the Child

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Applicant

B

Respondent

The Children

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (contact/residence) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether direct contact between transgender parent and children is in the children's best interests given the risk of ostracism by the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community
  2. 2 Whether indirect contact is sufficient to protect the welfare of the children
  3. 3 How to balance the rights of the transgender parent with the welfare and rights of the children in a religious context

Ratio Decidendi

Direct contact between the transgender parent and the children is not ordered because the risk of severe social ostracism and harm to the children's welfare within their ultra-Orthodox community outweighs the benefits of direct contact at this time. Indirect contact is ordered as being in the children's best interests, with the possibility of review if circumstances change.

Court Disposition

Application for direct contact refused; indirect contact ordered.

Orders

  • Indirect contact between the father and children three times a year (letters/cards)
  • Life story work to explain the father's departure and transition to the children