Radicalisation of children: When should the court get involved? - Professor Jo Delahunty QC | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

The family court plays a crucial role in assessing the risk to children when one parent is accused of being radicalized, considering factors such as potential harm, religious freedom, and the possibility of radicalization within the family.

Key Insights

• 👪 Radicalization cases involving children often reach the family court as urgent crises triggered by events like a child reported missing or traveling plans to war zones.
• 👪 The family court must consider the safety and well-being of the child when one parent is accused of being radicalized.
• 🫡 Balancing the respect for freedom of speech and religious belief, the court intervenes when radicalized beliefs may pose a threat of harm to the child.

Transcript

I do have experience of cases involving radicalization children I at for both local authorities might for parents who accused of being radicalized and that scenario is one of the classic examples where the law the family law has to react very speedily to changes in society because very often the changes in society politics in particular religious b... Read More

Questions & Answers

Q: How does the family court handle cases of radicalization involving children?

The family court responds swiftly to such cases, considering the immediate risk to the children and whether remaining in the family home poses a threat to their safety and well-being. The court involves representatives from the family, local authorities, and sometimes the police to make an informed decision.

Q: What triggers the family court's involvement in radicalization cases?

Cases involving radicalization often come to light when a child is reported missing or a family is stopped at the border with plans to travel to a war zone. These events raise concerns about the potential harm the children may face within the family or in the intended destination.

Q: How does the court navigate the delicate balance between freedom of religious belief and the need to protect the child's welfare?

The court respects individuals' freedom of speech and religious beliefs. However, if those beliefs are likely to cause harm to the child, such as the family's intention to join a war zone, the court intervenes to secure the child's safety. The line is drawn when the child's well-being is at risk.

Q: What are the challenges faced by the family court in these cases?

Striking a balance between intervention and respecting personal freedom is challenging for the family court. Excessive interference may alienate individuals or result in unintended consequences. Each case requires careful assessment of the degree of risk and potential harm to the child.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Radicalization cases involving children often come to the family court as crises triggered by events like a child reported missing or a family being stopped at a border with plans to travel to a war zone.

• The court must determine whether the children are at risk by remaining in the family home, even if the initial trigger to join a radical group has been stopped by authorities.

• Balancing the respect for freedom of speech and religious belief, the court intervenes when radicalized beliefs pose a threat of harm to the child, such as the risk of being taken to a war zone.