The Independent have gone with a clickbait headline
www.independent.co.uk/news/jewish-children-banned-from-seeing-their-transgender-parent-a7553431.html
"Court bans children from seeing transgender parent because it is 'incompatible' with their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish faith"
However the actual judgment is more focused on the extreme views of the parents' religious community.
This is the judgment:
www.familylaw.co.uk/system/froala_assets/documents/1452/J_v_B_and_The_Children__2017__EWFC_4.pdf
Rather long judgement, my summary:
Father and mother Charedi (ultra-Orthodox Jews who do everything the Rabbi tell them and are not allowed contact with outside world) in North Manchester. Married via arranged marriage since 2001, now aged in 30s so presumably young at marriage. 4 kids. Father leaves home after transgendering, remains Orthodox Jew, although obviously not quite so Orthodox as previously.
School says that sex change is not compatible with the school's strict religious ethos in particular that they do not discuss homosexuality at all.
A foster parent, called in evidence by the mother in order to say 'if you allow children to contact transgender father, they will be utterly ostracised', offered two examples in support of this:
- a 15-year-old girl she had fostered who had been sexually abused was ostracised from the community and lost all of her friends, as they wanted to shield their own children from talk of sexual abuse. She changed schools as a result.
- a 14-year-old girl abused by her family and wider community since the age of 11. Similarly ostracised
Foster carer says that those involved are beyond law, social services, etc., and they will 'find their way around it' in order to ostracise people violating their norms. [no word if the sexual abusers are ostracised]
The oldest son's headteacher said a parent who takes their children to the cinema, or 'reads the newspapers around them' would not be offered a place at the school, and if a child with any such inappropriate influences was at the school they would be encouraged by the school to leave to avoid influencing the other children.
The judge met the oldest son in person, and son says
"if he saw his father, it would affect him in a bad way. He would get bullied and lose his friends. His brothers and sisters didn’t know what their father had done and would not know what to do or think – it would affect their lives. If their mother remarried, they could have a father"
"He said that his mother was anxious for all the children’s futures. He did not feel proud of his father. He had told him confusing things. He (the father) had made his decision and had to go through with it, it wouldn’t affect his life as much as the children’'s"
Judge said he was inclined based on the description of the community as 'warm, close and supportive' NOT to believe dire predictions about ostracism of children - however based on examples from foster parent, meeting son, the consensus from father, Rabbi, and others - he concluded that the religious community was in fact unwavering in its principles, and that there could therefore be no contact as it WOULD, in point of fact, lead to the children suffering greater harm (through ostracism from community, school, etc.) than the benefit (contact with father).
The decision does not appear unreasonable in law, in that the family courts are concerned about the welfare of the children, which they have decided is best continuing within the framework of their fanatical sect, rather than outside it. The best interests of either parent is not a concern for the court, nor whether the father's sexuality is protected by law.
AIBU however to think that the Independent have distorted the story, saying "Court bans children from seeing transgender parent because it is 'incompatible' with their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish faith"
The actual judgment does not make that conclusion at all, but rather concludes
"Court bans children from seeing transgender parent because their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect would ostracise them"
AIBU to see this as deliberate anti-judge shit-stirring by the Independent, when the problem here is NOT with the judge but with the fanatical releigious sect?