The High Court has rejected an application by parents to have their 16 month old son (G), who is in care, ritually circumcised.
G’s father is of Lebanese Muslim heritage and argued that ritual circumcision was an important aspect of the boy’s identity. The application was also supported by G’s mother.
But it was opposed by both the Local Authority (LA) and G’s Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service appointed guardian.
The LA, the London Borough of Hackney, argued there are “no clear or cogent arguments that this irreversible procedure would be in G’s best interests”.
Instead, the decision should be “deferred until G is older and can make the decision himself”.
The guardian was “strongly of the view” that G should not be ritually circumcised.
The judge, Nageena Khalique KC, explained the Children Act 1989 requires the welfare of the child to be “the paramount consideration” in reaching a decision on ritual circumcision.
The procedure is “likely to be painful and carries with it small but definable physical risks and long term emotional or psychological impact”, she said.
Three children have bled to death in recent years in the UK following circumcision. The NHS website lists “permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex” as a complication of the procedure.
Khalique explained 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”.
It is a “strong thing to impose a medically unnecessary surgical intervention” when it is opposed by residential carers, she added.
She ruled it was 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”.
She was satisfied her best interests evaluation “does not lead to a violation of the father of the father’s or the child’s Article 9 rights.”
Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights enshrines the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is a qualified right, which can be limited to protect the rights and health of others.
The decision is the latest in a long series of rulings that ritual circumcision should be deferred until the child is capable of making their own decision.
NSS: ‘Welfare of child must supersede religious genital cutting convictions’
National Secular Society human rights lead Dr Alejandro Sanchez: “Ritual circumcision is medically unnecessary, dangerous and deprives the child of an important erogenous tissue.
“We are relieved the court has protected G from this invasive procedure. It is absolutely right that the welfare of the child must supersede a parent’s religious desire to cut their son’s genitals.
“This ruling adds to a growing body of case law that ritual circumcision is not in a child’s best interests.
“Unfortunately, this protection against religious genital cutting only applies to cases that come before the courts. It should now be extended to all children.”