Parties Dispute School Arrangements for their Child
Watling & Watling [2022] FedCFamC2F 13 (14 January 2022)
The father commenced proceedings in light of the uncertainty about where X would go to school in 2020. The father seeks shared care in respect of time and the allocation of parental responsibility equally on the parties. The Court, in adjudicating this dispute, relied upon Family Law Act 1975(Cth).
Facts:
Mr Watling (“the father”) and Ms Watling (“the mother”) are the parents of X born in 2014 and Y born in 2016. When the parties separated, they lived in a northern suburb of Adelaide and had made tentative arrangements for X to attend a private school close by. Their separation derailed the consensual implementation of this plan. The mother moved to a rented home in a southeastern suburb of Adelaide.
The father was born in 1976. He has re-partnered but has elected not to provide details in this regard. The mother was born in 1976. She has not re-partnered and would like to reduce her hours of work. The parties married in 2013 and finally separated in May 2019 when X was just four and due to start pre-school the following January and Y was not yet three.
It was logistically challenging for her to get X to and from the school initially selected. The father confirmed the child’s enrolment at the school initially selected and arranged for her to attend it from 2020 onwards. From the mother’s perspective, the father had unilaterally arranged for X to attend the convenient school for him, which although previously endorsed, was now unsuitable given her change of residence and the fact that she had hitherto been the predominant provider of care for the children. Financial issues also arose, as the mother was concerned the school fees were beyond her means.
The father does not consider it unilateral given the convenience of the school for him, his employment commitments and the fact that the mother had previously endorsed the school, which he believes is an excellent one. The mother remains resentful about what she would characterise as the father’s unilateral decision to confirm X’s enrolment and wants both children to attend a school close to her home at the start of the 2022 school year. The father does not want X to be unsettled by a change of school and therefore the obvious solution, in his view, is for Y to attend the same school as her sister, which he asserts will provide an excellent standard of education for both children and is proximate to the child care centre Y has hitherto attended.
He believes her move was made for selfish reasons and was motivated by the mother’s desire to make it as difficult as possible for him to remain engaged in the day to day lives of the children to the previous optimal level, which had existed whilst the parties’ relationship remained extant. From his perspective, the mother’s rented accommodation is not permanent and she could obtain housing closer to the school which X has attended for the past two years. In this case, the parties have been given ample opportunity to resolve the issue of schooling consensually. They are unable to do so.
Accordingly the decision must fall to the court, irrespective of the risks incumbent in such an adjudication process. On a final basis, the mother proposes the children live with her and spend time with their father on alternate weekends from after school Friday until 5.00 pm the following Sunday; in the other week from after school Thursday until the commencement of school the following Friday; for half of each school holiday period on a week about basis, unless agreed otherwise; with special occasions being shared.
Issue:
Whether or not the children should go to school in accordance with the mother's wishes.
Applicable law:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII s 60B - contain a list of aims and principles, which the court is directed to apply to ensure that a child’s best interests are met through any orders it makes.
Analysis:
The court appointed child dispute counsellor, Ms D, identified continuing acrimony between the parties’ post-separation, as her preeminent concern so far as the children’s on-going emotional wellbeing was concerned. She also recommended that the children be enrolled at a school closer to the mother’s residence. It is Ms D’s view that X is a robust child emotionally and will cope with the change involved. Ms D has a significant reservation that a shared care regime would work for these children, given the acrimony between their parents and their compromised communication skills.
At least for the next few years, the children will be living more with their mother than their father and this tips the balance in favour of the children attending the more convenient school for her. One of the more important considerations likely to influence which is the preferable school for X and Y is the convenience of that school for the parent who will have the greater responsibility for delivering the children to and from it. B School is very inconvenient for the father; whilst N School is very inconvenient for the mother. This balance of convenience must be significantly influenced by the parents concerned in providing more of the physical or nuts and bolts day to day care of the children.
Conclusion:
The Court ordered that the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for the children of the marriage X born in 2014 and Y born in 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the children”). The mother is authorised by this order to enrol the children at B School, Suburb C for the start of the school year in 2022 and the children attend the school for their primary education unless the parties agree in writing otherwise. Paragraphs 2 to 12 (inclusive) of the orders made by consent on 10 December 2020 continues until further or other order. The final hearing fixed for 7 February 2022 is vacated and the matter will be listed for directions on 9 February 2022 at 9.30am to determine what form of dispute resolution process should be engaged and when it should occur.
