FLAST CASE SUMMARY: Sandison & Thornhill 2019: Parental Responsibilty
Sandison & Thornhill [2019] FamCA 85 (25 February 2019)
Both parents have been unable to agree which primary school the child (5 years of age) should be enrolled. The father seeks orders, which would require the child to be enrolled at D School. The mother seeks orders that the child be enrolled at B Primary School in Suburb C. Both parents have equal shared parental responsibility and the child resides with the father on a rotating schedule 3 nights- one week, two nights the next week (by way of consent orders). One of the child’s half siblings already goes to the school proposed by the mother.
FACTS SUMMARY:
- The mother has three children from her previous relationship. They are: W (14 years); Y (13 years) and Z (nine years).
- Child X five is years of age.
- The mother’s elder two children live primarily with their father and his partner.
- Child Z lives with the mother. The mother, child X and Z live with the mother’s parents in Suburb K.
- Child Z already attends the school proposed by the mother.
- Both parents have equal shared parental responsibility for child X.
- Both parents are unable to agree about which school child X will attend.
- 30 April 2018, orders were made by consent stating the child X shall spend time with the father on a two week cycle: alternating 3 nights one week, 2 nights the next week.
- The mother is primarily responsible for delivering and collecting the child from school.
ISSUE:
What school is in the child’s best interest to enrol in?
HELD:
Order is made for the child to attend the school proposed by the mother.
Pursuant to Section 60CA , it specifies when determining whether to make a parenting order in relation to a child, a court must honour the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. Section 60CC outlines particular criteria that must be considered in deciding what is in a child’s best interests.
It was established the mother is child X’s primary parent, and even though both parents will be taking child X to and from school, the mother will be undertaking this task significantly more often than the Father.
The Judge then determined that it’s not practical for the mother to travel to the school proposed by the father across the harbour.If the mother was required to travel to the father’s proposed school it would likely place great weight upon her and impact her capacity to parent the child, for example; the mother would have more difficulty taking the children to their after school extra curricular activities furthermore, before and after school care would be a reality for child X as well.
The Court acknowledges that both parents are very capable parents and have a great love for child X, however the fathers proposal was considered not in the child’s best interest for practicality reasons, additionally, it may also ultimately inflame an already difficult relationship between the parents and cause additional conflict, which would further distress child X.