Having enjoyed Solar by renowned author Ian McEwan and then really enjoyed his spy thriller novel Sweet Tooth, I thought it was nailed on that The Children Act would be another high quality piece of work by him.  However, for me, it lacked something that these two other books possess.  Rather than enjoyable it was more interest at a distance.  It failed to dramatically draw me in for the most part.  Throughout, I felt like a spectator reading this book, rather than being an active participant!

It centres on the life of a leading family division High Court judge called Fiona Maye.  We find her where her marriage to Jack is in deep crisis, but where her professional self continues to go from strength to strength.  The crux of the book occurs when she is asked to rule in the case of a seventeen year old boy Adam Henry.  Adam has leukaemia but is refusing a required blood transfusion on the grounds that it goes against his Jehovah’s Witness faith.  It is thus the fallout of Fiona’s ruling as to whether treatment should be legally enforced or not, that then shapes the climax of the story at the end.

The main issue I had with the story was that before Adam entered Fiona’s world, there was too much legal jargon involving her other cases.  For example, we found out about a case where she had to give a ruling that involved the strict orthodox Chareidi Jewish community.  We were led through this case stage by stage and for a non-legal person such as myself, it all got a bit boring and the syntax too legal.  I found myself fighting to read these legal sections rather than the prose just naturally flowing as I read on.

Easier to read were the conversational bits that Fiona had with her husband, work colleagues and Adam.  These parts flowed much better and allowed for greater emotional attachment to the story.  Nevertheless, at times even these sections were a bit overly flowery to read by McEwan.  Whereas I had no trouble whatsoever in reading Solar or Sweet Tooth, this on the whole was a much more challenging read.  It was that challenging at times that I never felt able to fully relax with it.

The most positive aspect of this book unquestionably, was the big ethical issue that McEwan looked at, i.e. do the courts have a right to rule in and over medical cases that involve religion and children?  Adam was going to be eighteen in a few months time and so then the courts would have no power over his treatment.  Both sides of the argument where well presented and it was not like reading an overly biased persuasive piece of writing by the author.  As my heading suggests it was an interesting case to look at to some degree but it lacked a bit of emotional connectivity as I have already said.

A good book but not a classic from Ian McEwan…….CASE DISMISSED!  3/5.