G (Non-therapeutic circumcision: religious/cultural grounds), Re

In deciding whether to authorise non-therapeutic circumcision of a child in care, the child’s welfare is paramount. Religious, cultural and parental views are important, but they form part of the wider welfare assessment and do not determine the outcome. The court must weigh the irreversible nature of the procedure, its medical risks and lack of therapeutic benefit against any identified cultural or religious benefit. Where clear benefits are not established, the court may defer the decision until the child has sufficient maturity and insight to decide. Cultural identity can be supported by education, life-story work, suitable carers and family contact without circumcision.

The local authority applied under the inherent jurisdiction concerning G, a 16-month-old boy subject to a care order and placement order. G’s father sought authorisation for non-therapeutic circumcision, initially relying on religious grounds and later on Lebanese cultural identity. The mother supported the application, while the local authority and Cafcass Guardian opposed it.

G had no therapeutic need for circumcision. He was living with foster carers pending adoption, and the court considered the effect of the procedure on his welfare, identity, relationship with his twin sister and future adoptive placement. The central issue was whether circumcision was in G’s best interests or whether the decision should be deferred until he could make an informed choice.

1. Application refused. The court declined to make an order requiring G to be circumcised.
2. G’s welfare was paramount. The court applied the welfare checklist in Children Act 1989, including G’s age, background, physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of the change, potential harm and the capacity of relevant adults to meet his needs.
3. The court applied the guiding principles in Re P (Circumcision: Child in Care) [2021] EWHC 1616 (Fam). Religious upbringing may be important, and the views of parents and primary carers require serious consideration, but they remain part of the wider welfare assessment. The court must also consider medical risks and the irreversible nature of circumcision.
4. G had no medical or therapeutic need for the procedure. Circumcision would be painful, carried definable physical risks and could have long-term emotional or psychological consequences. Its only identified benefit was a connection with his Lebanese heritage.
5. The father’s inconsistent evidence and stated lack of religious practice meant that little weight could be given to religious grounds. Cultural identity was a relevant consideration, but circumcision was only one aspect of a wider heritage which could be supported through life-story work, suitable adoptive parenting and contact with G’s half-brother.
6. The fact that G would be adopted, with potentially limited contact with his birth parents and unknown adoptive carers, distinguished the circumstances from Re P. The balance of welfare factors favoured deferral until G had sufficient maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer-term implications.
7. The outcome did not violate the father’s or G’s rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.