Barone and Barone

The Family Court of Australia considered an Application in a Case filed by the father, Mr Barone, seeking interim parenting orders to change the schooling of the parties' two children, B and C. The mother, Ms Barone, opposed this application. The court was required to determine whether it was in the best interests of the children to change their current school to one of two proposed by the father.

The central legal issue was the application of section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to the father's application. This required the court to consider various factors, including the children's right to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, the potential impact of any change on their well-being and development, and the practical difficulties associated with any proposed arrangements. The court also had to consider existing orders which provided that in the event of disagreement on schooling, the mother's decision would be final, provided she had given the father access to relevant information and considered his views.

Justice Aldridge reasoned that the children had already commenced attending a school in Suburb G and had been there for approximately two to three weeks, which was identified by a family consultant as a crucial settling-in period. The court accepted that this school was adequately catering for C's attention deficit disorder, a factor not evidenced in relation to the father's proposed schools. While acknowledging the father's concerns about increased travel time and its potential impact on his time with the children, particularly C, the court found that the benefits of stability and the shorter travel distance to the mother's residence outweighed these concerns. The court also noted that the father's application was filed late in the school year, suggesting it would have been preferable for such an application to be determined before the commencement of the school term.

Consequently, the father's Application in a Case filed on 1 February 2013 was refused and dismissed. The court also reserved the costs of the day to the final hearing.