The High Court rejected a father’s request for a non-therapeutic circumcision of his son who is subject to a care order. 

Background:

G is a 16-month-old boy subject to a care order in favour of the local authority (LA). The care and placement orders for G and his twin sister S were finalised on the 11th of June 2024, but the children have since been placed with a foster carer after discharge from hospital due to concerns about the parents' history of drug use, the mother's mental health and father's criminal history. In addition, the parents' relationship was volatile with a history of domestic abuse by the father against the mother. The parents each accepted they could not care for the children and did not oppose the final orders. The twins are presently awaiting adoption. 

Although the father, of Lebanese-Muslim heritage, was incarcerated, he had some contact sessions with the twins. In June 2024, G’s father sought the Court's authorisation for G to be circumcised with the support of G’s mother. However, both the LA and the Guardian opposed the application on the basis that he could become circumcised later in life if he chose to do so. 

Decision: 

The High Court has rejected the father’s application, 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.

Turning to the medical evidence, Miss Nageena Khalique KC noted that a Consultant Community Paediatrician, after reviewing G's adoption medical records, had 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 evidence from the social worker that the father had “clearly and consistently stated that he is not a practising Muslim, does not follow a halal diet, and eats pork” had some weight on the Judge’s decision. Similarly, the fact that the father did not object to the foster carers celebrating “Christian festivals” was also taken into consideration. The fact the father’s older son has not been circumcised also played a decisive role. Another element considered was the fact that the father never expressed a preference for “a culturally or religiously matched placement”. Moreover, he declined the offer of the children being provided with ‘halal food days’ or visiting a mosque. 

The LA 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 for himself. This was especially germane as the mother had changed her reasoning as to why G should be circumcised. Initially, she had stated that it was for health reasons but then changed her case to religious reasons, despite her other sons not being circumcised and also being from Muslim backgrounds.  

The argument of the father which “focuses intensely around the importance of G’s Muslim heritage and Islamic traditions” was rejected due to the lack of evidence on the part of the father that such traditions were important. As the Judge noted, “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.”

Turning to the legal framework, Miss Nageena Khalique KC noted that the welfare of the child, both in the immediate and long-term, was the paramount consideration in reaching a decision. The LA has senior parental responsibility for G pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989). Under Section 33(6)(a) CA 1989, the LA is required, for as long as it has a care order, not to take any step to change a child's religious upbringing. However, in this case, the father did not express any strong wish for the children to be raised in a certain faith. The Judge concluded that this application is one to which Section 1(3) CA 1989 applies. She concluded that for the circumcision “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. The only benefit identified by the father is that G will be able to identify with his half-Lebanese heritage.”

Implications:

This decision is very particular due to its facts and the adoption process regarding the twins. It makes it clear that courts will attach little weight to reasons given by a parent if there is conflicting information, especially for such invasive procedures as circumcision. 

The Court will look at the welfare interests of the child and irreversible medical procedures will only be ordered when they are clearly in the child’s best interests. The ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving any non-therapeutic circumcision of children subject to a care order.