International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 18, (2004), 147–177 International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Vol. 18, No. 2,  Oxford University Press, 2004; all rights reserved * School of Social Work and Faculty of Law, Bar Ilan University, Israel. An earlier version of this article was initially presented as part of the Research Seminar Series of the Family Studies Research Centre at Cardiff University on 27 February 2002. The research for it began while the author was a Research Fellow at Queen Mary College, University of London. I am very grateful to Professor Gillian Douglas, Mr John Eekelaar, Professor Michael Freeman, Professor Nigel Lowe, Professor Mervyn Murch, Dr Rhona Shuz, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments to earlier versions of this article. I also thank Professor Smadar Lavie for referring me to Bruch (2001). REDEFINING THE CHILD’S RIGHT TO IDENTITY YA’IR RONEN* ABSTRACT This article proposes redefining the child’s right to identity as a right to state protection of ties meaningful to the child. Its main arguments are, in essence: (1) Such a right should protect the development of an authentic individual by seeking the child’s wishes and feelings concerning their ties. (2) Protection of an individualized identity necessitates exploration of culture as a context of personal meaning which cannot be equated with cultural sensitivity as commonly perceived. (3) Consequently, preferential protection of the child’s ties to a minority culture or to individuals affiliated to it is seen as violating the proposed right. (4) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child reaffirms commitment to a dynamic child-constructed identity. (5) Protection of the proposed right reflects, protects and creates a social reality in which children’s lives may be imbued with personal meaning. A discussion of two English cases demonstrates these arguments. 1. INTRODUCTION This article maintains that the state should have a positive duty to safeguard the child’s right to identity as a right to protection of ties meaningful to the child . 1 It suggests that these ties delineate the child’s identity. These are primarily ties to the human world, but they can also be ties to an animal, such as a dog or a horse, to an inanimate object, such as a book or a tree, or to a geographic place such as a village or a physical home. It begins with an exposition of the main arguments and focus. This introduction is followed by a discussion of authenticity, of the child’s legally neglected need for a meaningful existence and of culture as a context of personal meaning. This discussion forms the rationale for the