header-logo header-logo

19 July 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7523 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Interfaith parenting

HLE blogger Geraldine Morris examines the approach to religion in family proceedings

The media love a celebrity divorce, so the recent news that the actor and leading member of the Church of Scientology, Tom Cruise, is to divorce for the third time has inevitably attracted a lot of attention and speculation. While the lives of celebrities may seem far removed from those of ordinary mortals, one issue that has reportedly been a cause of concern to the third Mrs Cruise, Katie Holmes, is that of their daughter’s religious upbringing within the Church of Scientology.

Disagreements on religious upbringing may arise in any family. The Cruises have apparently settled their issues at a very early stage, a testament perhaps to good lawyers, but also possibly high stakes and reputation management. For those who can’t agree, there is plenty of guidance from the courts in this jurisdiction. Often cases are concerned with simple or small issues and established religion. Others, as with the majority of cases detailed hereafter, deal with more extreme circumstances.

The Court of Appeal took the view in Re R (A Minor) (Religious Sect) [1993] 2 FCR 525 that religious influences are significant in terms of a child’s future welfare and thus are one of the relevant circumstances when applying the principle of the paramountcy of the child’s welfare as set out in the Children Act 1989, s 1. Parents do not have to provide their child with any religious instruction at all, the issue tends to arise only where one parent is particularly keen for a child to receive religious instruction or where the parties are of different religions and have strong views.

Context is everything—there are no hard and fast rules relating to set religious practices or beliefs, the court will look at the reality of the child’s upbringing and family circumstances and the impact of any decision made in relation to religion…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7523 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll