Jones vs Derby

Spouses Jones arrived in the UK from Jamaica during their youth ^[7] . In the eighties, after their last fourth child left their parental home, they began to think about taking other people's children for education ^[7] . Between August 1992 and January 1995, the Joneses adopted several children. The last time they took a child in September 1993 for a period of one month. Later in September 2004, the Joneses again filed a petition, but then withdrew it due to personal circumstances that arose ^[8] . A total of 15 children passed through the Jones family ^{[9] [2] [4] [3] [10]} .

Spouses Jones are members of the Pentecostal Church and hold strict views, considering it is morally unacceptable to have any sexual relationship, except for a relationship between a man and a woman living in a marriage ^{[10] [8]} . Eunice Jones, a retired nurse in the past, taught classes at a Sunday school. ^[7]

In January 2007, the Joneses after a long break again filed a petition with the City Council of Derby ^[8] . Spouses, who at that time were already over 60 years old, asked for permission to take under guardianship for short periods several children aged 5 to 8 years ^{[7] [1] [11] [2] [4]} .

In July and August 2007, the Joneses underwent six interviews with independent social worker Jenny Shaw, the results of which were prepared on August 27, 2007 ^[8] . At a meeting on August 7, Shaw told the Jones that they might have paperwork because of their categorical views on sexuality . The show noted that the views of the Joneses do not meet the established minimum requirements ( eng. National Minimum Standards ) for guardianship families. In particular, in one of the conversations, Mrs. Jones explained that she would ignore the situation if she finds out about the child’s mobbing because of his homosexuality . In addition, the Joneses made it clear that they could not support a teenager, embarrassed by his homosexual feelings ^[8] . On August 13, the Jones met with Shaw and manager Sally Penrose, who also noted the concerns of the social worker ^[8] .

Reconsideration of the suitability of the Joneses to participate in the foster care program was conducted by social educator Linda Williams in 2008. In her conclusion, consisting of 48 pages, Williams wrote that the Joneses are kind and hospitable people for whom the comfort of the child always comes first ^[6] . At the same time, Williams pointed out that Jones' views on same-sex relationships do not meet modern ideas and cannot be changed ^{[6] [8]} .

After the Joneses were denied the right to care for their children, they accused the Derby City Council of religious discrimination , although the City Council made it clear that the Jones religious beliefs themselves did not play any role in this matter. The trial began on April 14, 2010 in the High Court of Justice ^[8] .

During the court debate, the accused side claimed that in one of the interviews, Mr. Jones claimed that if he knew about the child’s homosexual orientation, he would try to “remake” him ( English turn the child ), however, Mr. Jones himself stated in court that He doesn’t remember him saying such words in an interview ^[12] .

City Council Director Katie Harris ( German: Katie Harris ) in her interview to BBC Radio 4 noted that if Mr. Jones had implemented what he called “remake a child,” the city council as a government agency would have gotten big problems, so this could not be allowed ^[12] . At the trial, Harris argued that she had nothing against Christians and noted that many of the people to whom she issued custody permits were practicing Christians. According to her, the city council was concerned about the specific specific views of the Joneses. In addition, social workers found that the Joneses spend a lot of time in the church, which may interfere with their guardian duties, especially on weekends ^[12] .

Court Decision

The Commission on Equality and Human Rights, which was present at the trial as an observer, suggested that the Joneses take a special educational course as a solution to the conflict, but the Joneses refused it ^[6] .

The court expressed the view that it had nothing against the Jones religious beliefs, but opposed the “discriminatory consequences of these beliefs,” because, according to the judge, not a single set of beliefs can take precedence over other beliefs in a pluralistic society ^[4] . Judges noted the conflict in the Jones case over the intersection of human rights to freedom of religious belief and freedom of people from discrimination based on sexual orientation , but concluded that the equality of homosexual people and their right to live free from discrimination takes precedence over religious rights ^{[5] [ 10]} .

Court Response

Spouses Jones in an interview after the verdict was announced, they were denied custody of the children because of their conservative religious views on issues of sexual morality : “All we wanted to offer was a loving home for a needy child, and we have good experience as patronage parents ... We were banned because we have moral beliefs based on our faith ” ^{[13] [10]} . According to them, the court proceeded from the fact that their religious beliefs could harm children and “infect” them ^[13] .

British Prime Minister David Cameron said that he believes in the competence of the court and would support any decision, however, he noted that Christians should be tolerant and welcoming in accepting people with a different worldview ^[14] . Mrs. Jones expressed her surprise and resentment at Cameron's support for the court decision. ^[14]

The representative of the city council Derby supported the court decision. According to the spokeswoman for the council, the court recognized the child’s right to support regardless of their sexual orientation ^[10] . The head of the British LGBT organization Stonewall Ben Summerskill also noted that often, unfortunately, the interests of the child are forgotten and their own prejudices of the parents come first ^[9] . He also expressed the opinion that many Christians who are parents of homosexual children would be shocked by the views of the Jones spouses, who remained in the XIX century, and not in the XXI ^[9] .

British Christian organization Christian Legal Center regretted the decision. In her opinion, the court made it clear that conservative Christian ethical views are potentially dangerous for children and Christians are not suitable as trustees ^[10] . The court decision was also condemned by many clergymen of the country ^[5] .

• Johns vs. Court Decision Derby City Council (English) (February 22, 2011). Date of treatment December 21, 2012.
• Olga Gumanova, Tatyana Barkhatova. Homophobes? Children should not be raised (neopr.) . Pravda.ru (March 1, 2011). Date of treatment August 27, 2013. Archived on September 15, 2013.