Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON,LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J1210-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1975] EWCA Civ J1210-2
Lord Justice Stephenson and
Lord Justice Scarman.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Appeal of Plaintiff Wife from Order of His Honour Judge Zigmond, sitting as a Judge of the Family, sitting as a Judge of the Family Division, Manchester, July, 31st, 1975.)
MRS. Y. FRAZER, (instructed by Messrs. Bulcraig & Davis, Branston & Hill of Leicester) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR. C. BLOOM, (instructed by Messrs. Theo M. Cohen, Wilson & Co. of Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
We need not trouble you further, Mrs. Fraser, I will ask Lord Justice Scarman to deliver the first judgment.
This is an appeal by a mother from the decision of His Honour Judge Zigmond, sitting as a Judge in the Family Division in Manchester, in wardship proceeding begun by the father. By his decision, which was dated 31st July, 1975, the learned judge made the following order. He ordered that the children who were the subject matter of these proceedings should remain wards of court and that they should remain in the custody, care and control of the plaintiff father until further order, and he made the usual ancillary orders with which at this stage I need not trouble save only to mention that the mother was given access to the children upon a condition that she did not teach them the religious belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and a condition that she would not take them to Kingdom Hall where the seet to which she belonged met.
In the course of lucid and powerful judgment His Honour Judge Zigmond set out the facts and the various considerations that he had to deal with and assess. The facts are these. The father and mother were married in October, 1956. At that time the father was a member of the Church of England, but not a practicing member to any substantial extent. Indeed, it has become clear from the evidence in the case that the father, though nominally a member of the Church of England, is not a man of strong religious feelings. In particular, he dislikes what he called "fanaticism" in religious beliefs. The mother came from a Roman Catholic family, and the marriage took place in a Roman Catholic Church. They had agreed before the marriage that any children of the union would be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith.
There have been five children of the family. Susan is the eldest, being born in April, 1957, so that she is now 18 years old. The second child is Mark, a boy now aged 17. There is now no issue to be decided in these proceedings concerning Susan or Mark directly. Mark, we are told, has chosen to live with his father. The situation of Susan will become clear as I outline the history. These proceedings do, however, concern the three younger children of the family. After Mark there were born to this couple twins, Sally and Anglea, and their age now is 14; they will be 15 in January next. Their age is of importance, since when they reach the age of 16 they will be in a position to decide for themselves with which parent they want to live. The fifth child is a little girl, Rosemary, now only 8 years old. She was born after the mother had joined the sect of the Jehovah's Witnesses and is, therefore, the only child not formally baptized into the Roman Catholic faith.
The learned judge found - and his findings certainly cannot be challenged in this court - that the marriage was a reasonably happy one until some time in 1962. During that year the mother became interested in the religious beliefs of a sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is no doubt, as the judge found, that it
Was her developing commitment to the beliefs and practice of this sect that disrupted the marriage, first creating tensions between the father and mother, and ultimately causing not only the breakdown of the marriage, but serious catastrophes in the relationship between the parents and the children.
The eldest daughter, Susan, became very interested in her mother's newly-found and in her work for the sect which she had joined. By 1967 the mother became, as the judge puts it, "abaptised member of the sect". By that I understand him to have meant that in that year she became a fully active member of the sect, taking an active part in its work, in the canvassing of new members, and, of course, taking an active part in the meetings of the sect.
The father as is clear from the evidence and from the report of the welfare officer who has reported on this case, is a man of deep feelings, very fond of his children and devoted to their welfare. He has been opposed, and is now unalterably opposed, to the mother's commitment to the beliefs and practice of the sect, and unalterably opposed to his children being converted to the beliefs and practice of the sect. He genuinely fears for the welfare of his children should they become no converted.
The conflict over religious work and beliefs which developed in this family between the father and mother had the most unfortunate consequences for Susan, who was herself, as I have mentioned, attracted to the mother's faith. There came a time a year or so ago when the father delivered an ultimatum to Susan and the mother. Very briefly, the ultimatum was that if Susan was going to espouse the religion of the Jehovah's Witnesses she would have to leave the house. Susan insisted, no doubt in concert with the mother, on going one evening to a meeting of the sect. There was an unpleasant scene, which I do not propose to describe in this judgment, the effect of which was that the father expelled Susan from the house, his view being, as no doubt it still is, that one Jehovah's Witness in his family had done so much harm that he could not tolerate another. Unfortunately, as is clear from certain answers that he gave in evidence, he has now reached the emotional position, which I hope sincerely is not irrevocable, that he could not tolerate even one ofhis beloved children living at home with him if she should became a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
This man has had to endure such agony of spirit in consequence of the catastrophes that have fallen upon his family life that I myself would not regard any such answer as his final answer. I think that the welfare officer asseased his character correctly when he reached the conclusion that he was a man deeply concerned with the welfare of his children, whom he genuinely loved, and I believe that his love for these children will prevail ultimately whatever the result of this case, notwithstanding the bitterness and disappointment that he may have to face, and that that love will enable him at some time to come to terms with his children whatever course of life they may determine in the future to follow. Be that as it may, there was the disaster of Susan's expulsion, and from that moment on a breakdown which was already really irretrievable became one of tremendous pain to all concerned. It affected directly not only the mother, the father and Susan, but the twins. They were when this happened in their early teen ages. They, on the whole, have sided with their mother in the family division which unhappily has been the background of their young lives for far too long. Yet it is clear that each of them - and the mother recognizes this - does love her father. It is the existence of the father's love for the twins and the twins' love for the father, and the father's love for Susan, which may or may not be reciprocated by Susan, that gives some hope that the end of this man's travail may be happier than its present course.
There came a time in the early seventies - the exact time does not really matter - when, although living in the same house (I do not propose to give the address), the father and mother set up separatehouseholds, and thus for the last year or so the home situation has been that all the family have physically lived in the one house, but there have been two households. Susan left the household a year ago, but she was very much on her mother's side. The twins sided with the mother, but were very happy to go out with their father, particularly on his job (which I do not propose to mention), and Mark aided wholly with his father, though I am sure he was fond of his mother. The little girl, Rosemary, was no doubt lass influenced by the division than the others, and almost certainly saw plenty of both the mother and the father.
The learned judge found, as I have already indicated, that it was the acquisition by the mother of her new religion that disrupted and destroyed the household, and he made this powerful comment: "This was a happy family, with happy children. That has gone, that has finished." It was in this almost insupportable situation, very late in the course of the marriage and after the irretrievable breakdown, that the father committed adultery. The mother has not petitioned for divorce alleging that adultery. Her petition is dated 6th February, 1975, and a decree nisi was pronounced in an undefended suit on the 8th May of this year. The decree has now been made absolute as no court has yet been able to certify as to the arrangements for the children. I mention the adultery only to dismiss it totally from consideration. It was not the cause of the breakdown of the marriage; it was a symptom and sequel of it. It my judgment, as I think in the judgment of Judge Zigmond, the father is not to be blamed or criticised in the family situation for having committed adultery.
In the divorce proceedings the mother is seeking the custodyof the children. But it is in these proceedings, which are wardship proceedings begun on the 25th November, 1974, that is to say, before the filing of the petition, that the issue of custody has come before the court. In many ways it is convenient that we should deal with it now, since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singh v Entry Clearance Officer, New Delhi
...78028/01 (22 June 2004, unreported), ECt HR. Selmouni v France (2000) 7 BHRC 1, ECt HR. T (minors) (custody: religious upbringing), Re (1981) 2 FLR 239, X and Y v UK (1978) 12 DR 32, E Com HR. X v Belgium and Netherlands (1975) 7 DR 75, E Com HR. X v France (1982) 31 DR 241, E Com HR. X, Y ......
-
A NHS Trust v X
...Religion) [1993] 2 FLR 163 at 171) and not ‘immoral or socially obnoxious’ (Scarman LJ in Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 FLR 239 at 244) or ‘pernicious’ (Latey J in Re B and G (Minors) (Custody) [1985] FLR 134 at 157, referring to scientology).” 17 Article 9 of the E......
-
M (Children)
...settled by a trilogy of cases which, although now a generation old, are still definitive: Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 FLR 239 (Jehovah's Witnesses), Re B and G (Minors) (Custody) [1985] FLR 134 (Scientology) and Re R (A Minor) (Residence: Religion) [1993] 2 FLR 16......
-
Re G (Children)
...LJ in Re R (A Minor) (Residence: Religion) [1993] 2 FLR 163, 171) and not "immoral or socially obnoxious" (Scarman LJ in Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) (1981) 2 FLR 239, 244) or "pernicious" (Latey J in Re B and G (Minors) (Custody) [1985] FLR 134, 157, referring to scientolo......
-
Hands‐Off or Hands‐On?: Deconstructing the ‘Test‐Case’ of Re G within a Culture of Children's Rights
...of different religions when deciding issues of residence and contact.3 Scarman LJ in Re T (Minors) (Custody: Religious Upbringing) [1981] 2 FLR 239, 248.4 Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050. Munby LJ refers to this case in hisjudgment.5 n 3 above.6 S. Poulter, Eth......