Ich glaube, das hatten wir noch nicht:

Komplizierte Familienverhältnisse, inkl Misshandlung (domestic abuse).

1. P’s parents are Muslim: his father by birth and heritage, and his mother by conversion to Islam some years ago.
   
2. By application dated 25 November 2020 brought under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, P’s mother (“the mother”) seeks the court’s authorisation for P to be circumcised, in accordance with the custom of the Muslim faith; she wishes this procedure to be undertaken forthwith, and in any event before P’s second birthday. The application is supported by P’s father.
   

Schnell Tatsachen schaffen!

The Local Authority and the Children’s Guardian both contend that the decision about P’s circumcision should not be taken now, but should be deferred until later in P’s life.

1. The parents were assessed during the proceedings as joint carers for P, using a Resolutions Approach; in fact, their relationship ended after the assessment. Thereafter, the father recognised he could not care for P as a sole carer due to his work commitments and his caring commitments for his elderly mother. The mother recognised that she too would not be able to complete the Resolution work on her own, as a single parent to P. Accordingly the parents have both indicated that they would not oppose P remaining in the care of his maternal aunt and uncle.
   

Aber die Vorhaut muss ab!

Der "Experte", ein Mr. Mangera:

1. When it is strongly felt that the child will be raised in his parents’ religion and they both agree then children of his age are not given an opinion as a matter of routine practice. Therefore, the conviction that he will be raised Muslim needs to be there. In my opinion if the court feels [P] should be raised as a Muslim child, as per his parents requests, he/his parents should be given the same rights as all other Muslim families; which is to have a circumcision at a young age....
   

Klar können die Eltern sich beschneiden lassen. Sind sie denn noch jung? Wenn nicht, das geht auch noch mit 90, da gibt es Beispiele für.

1. The time taken to decide by [P] carries the risks that the procedure is technically more difficult, takes longer to perform, is more memorable for him, more costly and takes longer to heal.
   

Was sich aber alles dadurch erledigt, dass P das dann gar nicht will

Dann kost' das nämlich gar nüscht!

1. She further points to the fact that the Local Authority had initially been willing to contemplate, even allow the parents to arrange, for P to be circumcised when he was a new-born infant, but it had not happened; in this respect, I must observe that the mother fails to acknowledge that neither she nor the father took the appropriate or necessary steps to arrange it.
   

Ja, so ein Glück aber auch!

Das ist ja immer die große Angst der Eltern, dass das Zeitfenster sich schließt und sie dann bezüglich der Entscheidung entmachtet sind, Dass ihr Sohn dann selbst eine Entscheidung für sich trifft. Nämlich beim bewährten Genitalzustand zu bleiben.

1. The mother is concerned that if P is not circumcised now, he will not choose to be circumcised later in his life...
   

Na so was! Wo kommen wir hin, wenn jeder einfach selbst darüber entscheidet was von seinem eigenen Körper übrig bleibt? *puh*
Aber schön, dass es mal jemand so deutlich gesagt hat!

1. Mr Lindsay submits that, like the mother, the father is concerned that if left until later in his life P would not choose to be circumcised as he would not be sufficiently motivated by his faith to do so.
   

Ach, negative Religionsfreiheit gibt es nicht in England?

Diese Angst, dass der Sohn später im Leben eigenständig Entscheidungen treffen könnte! Das wird er eh müssen!

1. I note that the Local Authority has in the circumstances provided P with three child friendly board books: ‘My First book about Allah’, ‘My First Book about the Prophet Muhammad’ and ‘My First Book about the Qur’an’ (authored by Sara Khan and detailed to be teachings for toddlers and young children).
   

Na, Vorbildlich! Zumindest im Koran steht nichts von Vorhautamputation drin. Die anderen sollte man checken. Kann der Junge überhaupt schon lesen?

1. Interestingly, the right enshrined in the Convention is one which includes a freedom to “change his religion or belief and freedom”
   

Ja, und dann kann es als ziemlich unpassend empfunden werden wenn man gezwungen ist lebenslänglich mit einer religiösen Markierung herumzulaufen.

[list=1]

1. While it can never be reasonable parenting to inflict any form of FGM on a child, the position is different with male circumcision...
   

[/list]

Aber das ist doch seltsam! Da muss man sich doch fragen: warum diese Diskriminierung?

[list=1]

1. Society and the law, including family law, are prepared to tolerate non-therapeutic male circumcision performed for religious or even for purely cultural or conventional reasons
   

[/list]

Die Gesellschaft, mehrheitlich? Hat man die je gefragt?

Was hat eine nicht-indizierte Amputation ausgerechnet mit TOLERANZ zu tun, gegenüber dem Kind, gegenüber seiner Intimsphäre?

Conventional Reasons? Das ist beliebig. Weil heute Dienstag ist? Geht es noch weiter runter?

Und dann viel hin-und-her-Geschwurbel, und:

1. The issue for determination requires me to exercise a pure welfare-based jurisdiction
   

So weit, so gut!

No assessment of P’s ascertainable wishes and feelings can be obtained on this issue, given his age. The social worker nonetheless made a reasonable point when observing that:
“When [P] is older he may be very happy that he was circumcised- he may strongly align with the Muslim faith and traditions and may be happy that the procedure has been undertaken. However, there is also a possibility that [P] may not align himself with the Muslim faith or traditions as an older child and may view his circumcision in a negative way. The only way those involved with [P] would be able to garner his wishes and feelings on being circumcised is if the procedure took place when he is of an age where he can express his own wishes and feelings”

Und genau dann wird sie wahrscheinlich nicht stattfinden, eben das ist ja die brennende (aber unbegründete, die Vorhaut macht keine schlechten Menschen) Sorge der Eltern. Aber das ist dann völlig in Ordnung!

1. But I also note that neither of P’s older brothers (Q and T), with whom he spends time, and who are also placed in a home within the maternal family, have been circumcised.
   

Wird ja immer besser!

Warum dann der Lütte?

Laber, laber, Rhabarber und eigentlich ja schon, aber doch nicht so ganz und...

1. On balance, and with specific regard to the range of matters which I have summarised above, I have concluded that the decision to circumcise P should be deferred until he is able to make his own choice, once he has the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of the decision which he reaches.
   

Bloß - warum sollte das verdammt noch mal nicht jedem Jungen zustehen? Erwachsenen Männern, Mädchen und Frauen steht es doch auch zu - egal, welcher Religion oder Unglaubens!

Ende gut, alles gut? Immerhin ist es das "High Court", aber vielleicht gibt es ja noch eine höhere Instanz?
Oder der Papa fährt mit dem Jungen einfach mal einen Umweg zum "Beschneider"?

Hoffen wir das beste!

familylaw.co.uk/docs/font/re-p…fam).doc?sfvrsn=8714727_2

Die Eltern hatten die Gelegenheit, das Kind drei mal in der Woche zu sehen, hatten zu dem Zeitpunkt des Dokumentes aber schon über ein halbes Jahr keinen Gebrauch davon gemacht,
(Aber Hauptsache, die Vorhaut kommt ab!)
Völlig klar ist, dass ein UK Gericht in dem Fall, dass der Junge in der Obhut der Eltern wäre sich überhaupt nicht mit einer Genitalverstümmelung befasst hätte.
Leider.

In Deutschland läuft es vor Gericht verstümmelungsfreundlich:

Mutter bekommt alleiniges Sorgerecht um BGM durchführen zu können