Faith, Belief and a Child's Upbringing

When separated parents don't share a faith, the court doesn't pick a religion. Article 9 protects each parent's beliefs; the child's welfare decides.

Edition 7, first published 25 October 2026.

Yesterday, in Edition 6, I wrote about family life: a child’s time with each parent, and the strict test before any family is separated. Today’s right reaches into something even more personal.

Many families share a faith, or share the lack of one. When parents separate, that can change. One parent may hold on to a faith the other has left. Disagreements follow. Which school? Which festivals? Which place of worship, if any, at the weekend?

When parents can’t agree, those questions can end up in the Family Court. Article 9 sets the ground rules.

What the right says

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, says:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

Then come the limits:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

What it means in plain English

Article 9 has two layers.

• What you believe is protected absolutely. No court or council can tell you what to think, or whether your faith is true.

• How you live it out (worship, teaching, practice) can be limited, but only by law, and only where it’s necessary, for example to protect someone else’s rights or health.

It covers religious and non-religious beliefs alike. A parent with no faith has the same protection as a parent with a strong one.

In family cases there is a second rule alongside it. Under section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. A parent’s beliefs are respected. They don’t override what is best for the child.

How it applies in the Family Court

The court doesn’t pick a religion. In Re G (Education: Religious Upbringing) [2012] EWCA Civ 1233, separated parents from an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community disagreed about where their five children should go to school. The father wanted them to stay in the community’s single-sex schools. The mother wanted Orthodox but co-educational schools that would open up more choices later in life. The judge sided with the mother, and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

The way the court reasoned matters as much as the result. Lord Justice Munby said:

“It is not for a judge to weigh one religion against another. The court recognises no religious distinctions and generally speaking passes no judgment on religious beliefs...”

Both parents’ beliefs, he said, were “clearly worthy of respect”. The case turned on the children’s welfare and their future choices, not on which way of life was more correct. The father kept extensive time with the children, including taking them to synagogue on his weekends.

Mothers and fathers on an equal footing. In the same judgment, Lord Justice Munby set out a principle that runs right through family law:

“The voice of the father carries no more weight because he is the father, nor does the mother’s because she is the mother.”

A parent’s faith is not, on its own, a reason to cut them off. In Vojnity v Hungary (2013), a father belonged to a Christian congregation, the Congregation of the Faith. The Hungarian courts removed all his access to his son, essentially because of his “irrational worldview” and his attempts to pass his faith on.

The European Court of Human Rights unanimously found discrimination, in breach of Article 14 taken with Article 8. There was no evidence that his beliefs involved dangerous practices or exposed his son to physical or psychological harm. The Court said separated parents keep the right to share their beliefs with their children, just as married parents do. And it said “a measure as radical as the total severance of contact can be justified only in exceptional circumstances”. The Hungarian courts hadn’t even considered a lesser step.

Twenty years earlier, in Hoffmann v Austria (1993), the same Court had decided a case the other way round. A mother lost custody of her children because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. The Court found that a breach too, and said:

“...a distinction based essentially on a difference in religion alone is not acceptable.”

A mother in 1993. A father in 2013. The same rule.

Where the child’s welfare must come first. There are limits, and the courts are clear about them. A court can order a child to receive a blood transfusion even where the parents’ faith forbids it. As Lord Justice Munby put it in Re G: “In matters of religion, as in all other aspects of a child’s upbringing, the interests of the child are the paramount consideration.”

Why it matters for equality and children

Article 9 asks the courts to be neutral about belief, and Article 14 forbids discrimination on grounds including religion and sex. Taken together, they mean a parent shouldn’t lose time with their child because of what they believe, or because of whether they are the mother or the father.

It is also about the child. A child of separated parents may grow up between two traditions. That can be a richness, not a threat, as long as neither parent uses faith as a weapon against the other. As children get older, their own wishes count too.

What you can do

• If faith is part of a dispute, keep the focus on the child: what they need, what they’re used to, and what they say they want. Courts weigh welfare, not doctrine.

• Respect the other parent’s beliefs in front of your child, even where you disagree. Children shouldn’t have to choose between their parents’ faiths.

• If you feel your beliefs, or lack of them, are being held against you, ask what harm to the child is being suggested, and what evidence there is for it. That is the question Vojnity says must be answered.

• Ask your MP one question. How does the family justice system make sure parents are never treated differently because of their religion or belief?

This series is general information, not legal advice.

Sources

• ECHR, Article 9 (official text): https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

• Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Article 9: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/8

• Children Act 1989, s.1(1): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1

• Re G (Children) (Education: Religious Upbringing) [2012] EWCA Civ 1233, 4 October 2012, paras 1, 24, 36–37, 43–44 and 62–65 (Munby LJ): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1233.html

• Vojnity v Hungary (2013), app. no. 29617/07, judgment of 12 February 2013, paras 31 and 36–43: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/131.html

• Hoffmann v Austria (1993), app. no. 12875/87, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, para 36: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=002-9676

• Council of Europe, “Reforms made after mother lost custody of her children simply because of her religion” (Hoffmann v Austria): https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/reforms-made-after-mother-lost-custody-of-her-children-simply-because-of-her-religion

Charley Bickers, Founder of UN For Men - The United Global Alliance For Men & Boys

[Subscribe on Substack button]

The United Global Alliance For Men & Boys is not part of, affiliated with, or endorsed by the United Nations. UN for Men is our campaign for a dedicated UN body for men and boys.