High Court rejects application by father for young boy subject to care order to be circumcised

The High Court has rejected a father’s application for his 16-month-old boy to be circumcised, finding that it is in the child’s interests to defer the decision until he has the “maturity and insight” to appreciate the consequences and longer-term implications of the decision.

In G (Non-therapeutic circumcision: religious/cultural grounds), Re [2024] EWHC 2363 (Fam), the case concerned a boy, “G”, aged 16 months, who is subject to a care order.

In June G’s father sought the court's authorisation for G to be circumcised. G's mother supported the application.

Both the local authority and the Guardian, on behalf of G, opposed the application and contended that it was for G to make any decision about circumcision later in his life, if he so chose.

Outlining the background to the case, Miss Nageena Khalique KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court judge, said that in June this year final care orders and placement orders were made in respect of G and his twin sister (S).

The care proceedings had been issued due to concerns about the parents' history of drug use, the mother's mental health and the father's criminal history.

The father was incarcerated  earlier this year for 38 months in respect of drug related offences. The judge noted that the father has had some contact sessions with G and S whilst in prison.

The father has Lebanese, Muslim heritage. He has an older 12-year-old son, from a different relationship, who lives with his mother.

At the time of the hearing, both G and S were living together with foster carers. The judge said: “They are said to be healthy and thriving and receiving an excellent level of care from their foster carers who are devoted to them, and will remain with them until an adoptive family is identified.”

Turning to the medical evidence, the judge said that a Consultant Community Paediatrician had reviewed G's adoption medical records and concluded that there was “no clinical or therapeutic indication” for circumcision nor any health reason why surgery would be more of a risk to G than the background risk to any child.

The judge noted that the social worker had identified a suitable clinic where a circumcision could be performed for a child between 13-24 months old using local anaesthetic.

Turning to the evidence and positions of the parties, the judge said the social worker observed that the father has “clearly and consistently” stated that he is not a practising Muslim, does not follow a halal diet, and eats pork. The foster carers, who are neither Lebanese nor Muslim in background, celebrate Christian festivals and the father has not objected to this.

The social worker pointed out that the father's older son has not been circumcised and that there were no plans for this to be done.

The local authority submitted that there were no “clear or cogent arguments” that the irreversible procedure would be in G’s best interests, and that the decision should be deferred until G was older and could make the decision himself.

The father relied on statements which focussed on arguments around the importance of G's Muslim heritage and Islamic traditions.

He stated that he wished the circumcision to take place before G is 18 months old, to avoid G having memories of the procedure. He pointed to the importance of this tradition by stating that all the males in his family have been circumcised.

Analysing the father’s position, the judge said: “There is conflicting evidence in the father's statement; on the one hand he seeks for G to be circumcised on religious grounds, yet he also states that he is not a practising Muslim, nor does he wish his children to be brought up in any particular faith.

“Having taken further instructions from the father, [counsel for the father] revised his position in oral submissions, relying solely on the argument that G should be circumcised as part of his cultural heritage, asserting that circumcision has symbolic significance, relevant to G's Lebanese identity.”

The Guardian observed that life story work undertaken by the local authority is “committed to ensure the children have an understanding of their rich cultural and ethnic heritage”.

The judge noted that the Guardian was “strongly of the view” that G should not be circumcised.

Turning to the legal framework, the judge noted that the welfare of the child, both in the immediate and long-term, is the “paramount consideration” in reaching a decision about circumcision for a male child.

She added that a local authority is under a duty to ensure that a child in their care is not brought up in any different religious persuasion from that followed by his parents prior to the care order.

She said: “If the local authority breaches that duty, it will be exceeding the limitation imposed on its exercise of parental responsibility by section 33(6)(a) CA 1989.”

However, she observed: “The court is not bound to give effect to the wishes of the parents about religious upbringing “when satisfied that the child's welfare requires otherwise, and in giving effect to them the court has power to do so in such a manner as it may consider to be best in the child's interests”.”

Analysing the submissions, the judge began by considering G’s welfare. She said: “The application for G to be circumcised is one to which s 1(3) of the CA 1989 applies, including the following provisions:

1. the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);
2. his physical, emotional and educational needs;
3. the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
4. his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;
5. any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
6. how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
7. the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.”

She continued: “G is 16 months old. Plainly, in the light of G's age and understanding, his wishes and feelings are not ascertainable. His background is a mixed Lebanese/white British parentage. However, there is no suggestion by the father or the mother that G has ever been considered to be Muslim.

“G's physical needs are at present catered for by his foster carers. Circumcision is not required to meet any of his physical needs. His current emotional needs include maintaining his relationship with his foster carers during the adoption process and his sister throughout childhood (and developing a relationship with his half-brother, noting that he is not circumcised).”

She noted that the principle long term benefit which the father argues is that G will be “firmly identified” with his paternal heritage.

However, she said: “There is undoubtedly a need for G to be educated about the Lebanese side of his heritage, but as outlined by the local authority this can be done through the life story work and by suitably matched adoptive parents who can support G in understanding his cultural heritage.”

She added: “Despite the father's belief that circumcision is an important procedure in Lebanese culture, I accept the Guardian’s evidence that G may be profoundly impacted by it as he matures. The procedure is irreversible and would undoubtedly be a change in G's circumstances.”

She accepted the Guardian's analysis of how circumcision, (being a means by which a male child can identify with Lebanese culture but a female child cannot), would mark a difference between the siblings.

The judge observed this may feel unfair and “impact on their sense of identity”.

Concluding the judgement, Miss Nageena Khalique KC said: “Circumcision is a surgical intervention which has no medical basis in G's case. It is likely to be painful and carries with it small but definable physical risks and long term emotional or psychological impact. […] For it to be ordered there would accordingly have to be clear benefits to G which would demonstrate that circumcision was in his best interests notwithstanding the risks.”

She noted that in G's case, final care orders have been made and G will be adopted.

She said: “Inevitably, this means contact with his birth parents will be limited (if any) and as with any adopted child, the adopters (G’s primary carers) are entitled to have a say in the matter.”

She continued: “I have considered the differing factors and have come to the conclusion that I should not make an order requiring G to be circumcised.

“I attach little weight to the reasons identified by the father in his application given the conflicting information he has shared about his commitment to a Muslim way of life. I also found the mother's reasons for supporting the father's application on religious grounds to be unconvincing.”

The judge concluded it is in in G's welfare interests to defer the decision until G has “the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer term implications of the decision”.

Lottie Winson