Thursday, July 27, 2006
Judgement of Solomon?
The Times reports on page 31 (not apparently online) on a case from the House of Lords where they have decided, (against all the decisions of the lower courts) to allow a child to be looked after by the biological mother.
The case involved a lesbian "couple" who had decided to have children artificially. They later split up and of course the question as to who gets the child came to the fore with both protagonists claiming custody.
I shall refrain from commenting on the moral aspects here. There are some good quotes from the judgement of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: "... in the ordinary way the rearing of the child by his or her biological parent can be expected to be in the child's best interest ... A child should not be removed from the care of his or her biological parents without compelling reason".
A revealing quote from Lady Hale: "Had this been a dispute between mother and father, I find it impossible to believe that a court would have contemplated changing the children's primary home and schooling...". Despite the mild language, I think this is a strong criticism, suggesting that the lower courts became tied up in matters other than the welfare of the child.
Since, at least from the time of King Solomon, it has always been that normally the best interest of the child will be with its own biological parents. Indeed in the famous judgement from that King, we see the true mother prepared to sacrifice not being with the child forever rather than see the child harmed. So whilst of course I welcome this decision, it is very worrying that both the High Court and Court of Appeal (who let's face it shouldn't be staffed with lightweights) seemed unable to grasp the simple concepts involved here; preferring a "brave new world" to age old wisdom. It does not bode well for the future.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The case involved a lesbian "couple" who had decided to have children artificially. They later split up and of course the question as to who gets the child came to the fore with both protagonists claiming custody.
I shall refrain from commenting on the moral aspects here. There are some good quotes from the judgement of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: "... in the ordinary way the rearing of the child by his or her biological parent can be expected to be in the child's best interest ... A child should not be removed from the care of his or her biological parents without compelling reason".
A revealing quote from Lady Hale: "Had this been a dispute between mother and father, I find it impossible to believe that a court would have contemplated changing the children's primary home and schooling...". Despite the mild language, I think this is a strong criticism, suggesting that the lower courts became tied up in matters other than the welfare of the child.
Since, at least from the time of King Solomon, it has always been that normally the best interest of the child will be with its own biological parents. Indeed in the famous judgement from that King, we see the true mother prepared to sacrifice not being with the child forever rather than see the child harmed. So whilst of course I welcome this decision, it is very worrying that both the High Court and Court of Appeal (who let's face it shouldn't be staffed with lightweights) seemed unable to grasp the simple concepts involved here; preferring a "brave new world" to age old wisdom. It does not bode well for the future.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
