User:Nusquamhomo/sandbox

• Comment: The more I look at this, I realise with greater clarity that this has precisely no notability. The Family Court makes decisions affecting families, but verdicts there set no legal precedents, and the case at this level cannot in and of itself be notable. This case might be notable if it shoukld be appealed and the appeal be heard in a court where precedents are set.
  I suggest you do not work on in the hope that it will be accepted. The outcome of the case affects a family and children, yes, but it is not notable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: You have not persuaded me that this court case passes WP:GNG. It appears to be interesting, but not notable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

---

J v B

J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4. is a Family Court case.

Background

J and B were an ultraorthodox Jewish couple living in the Manchester Charedi community with their five children, who at the time were between two and twelve years old. J had understood her transgender identity since childhood but suppressed it, the distress she felt from presenting as male was accompanied by suicide attempts. In 2015 J and B parted when J started gender reassignment.

Although J continued to live as an Orthodox Jew, she was shunned from the Charedi community due to her transgender status.

J applied for a direct contact through a child arrangements order with her children, who continued to live with B. B opposed the order for fear that she too would be ostracized, and her children prevented from studying in Charedi schools.

Judgement

Due to s1(1) Children Act 1989, the children's' welfare had to be the paramount consideration.

The court held that due to the Charedi communities emphasis on isolating themselves from opposing lifestyles, the appellant and her children lived in "unconnected worlds". The threat that the children would be marginalised was so real and its consequences so dire that a direct contact order would be against their best interests. So, under the paramountcy principle, the best interests of the children outweighed the parents wishes and the general assumption that it would be in a child's best interests to have direct contact with their parent under s 1(2A) Children's Act 1989.

For this reason Peter Jackson J ordered indirect contact four times a year instead.