A recent High Court ruling on the rejection of a Christian couple’s application to become foster carers affirmed the decision of the local authority to prioritise the welfare and identity of vulnerable children over the rights of potential foster parents to instil their religious beliefs.
Facts:
The claimants, a married couple holding strong evangelical Christian beliefs, sought to become foster parents through the defendant, the Council. Their specific beliefs include a rejection of ‘gender fluidity’, the belief that homosexuality and abortion are ‘sinful’, and a lack of faith in promoting a diversity of sexual lifestyles and gender identities. The claimants had used the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum to homeschool their five children, a syllabus which contains teaching materials promoting a traditional, patriarchal view of marriage and describing homosexuality as a corruption of God’s plan.
The Council rejected their application at the initial stage. The social worker concerned, Joy Dunbavin, cited three reasons for the rejection in September 2019. The first was that the claimants had a busy household with three young children, and their home-schooling practice would be problematic for a looked-after child who was required to attend mainstream school. More significantly, their stated belief that homosexuality was morally wrong and a “choice” would make it “quite difficult to be proactive in promoting a very diverse view of the world,” a stipulation for all Council foster carers following the National Minimum Standards (NMS). Suspecting discrimination based on their faith, the claimants covertly recorded later discussions, in which Mr. Smith confirmed that, if a foster child “came out” as gay, he would tell the child that it was a sin. The claimants subsequently brought proceedings in the Manchester County Court under the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, but the trial judge found against them, leading to the current appeal before Mr. Justice Turner.
Decision:
The High Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal. The Court focused its analysis on Article 9(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and whether the Council’s interference with the claimants’ right to manifest their religious beliefs was prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this instance, the foster children).
The Court’s overriding principle was that the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration. The legal framework for fostering, including the Children Act 1989 and the NMS, requires foster carers to positively promote and celebrate a child’s individual identity, including their sexual orientation and gender identity. Applying the proportionality test, the Court concluded that the Council’s decision was justified.
Implications:
The judgement directly impacts the personal choices and public role of the claimants and families with similar, deeply-held conservative religious beliefs. The ruling confirms that, for certain public roles, such as fostering, a family’s religiously motivated desire to “bear witness” in words and deeds (i.e., to manifest their beliefs) is subordinate to statutory duties regarding child welfare. A family may legally be barred from public service if their stated intentions conflict with the legal requirements of the role, even if they pose no immediate danger.
The ruling may discourage otherwise capable and committed families of faith from applying to foster, fearing that honest disclosure of their views will lead to automatic rejection. This could paradoxically reduce the pool of available foster carers, regardless of any strong parenting skills or stable home life they might offer.
For those children who are “looked after” and their birth families, the implications of this ruling centre on safety, identity affirmation, and the quality of care. The ruling ensures that the state prioritises placing vulnerable children in homes that will affirm their developing identity. This is critical for children who often have low self-worth. If a child later questions their sexual orientation or gender, the Court affirmed that they should not face a foster carer who views their identity as a “sin and a choice”.
