Chamness & Hearle

Her Honour Judge C. E. Kirton QC made orders concerning the enrolment and attendance of a child, X, born in 2014, between the Applicant Mother, Ms Chamness, and the Respondent Father, Mr Hearle. The dispute centred on which school X should attend, with the Father proposing enrolment at B School and the Mother having previously arranged for X to attend F School. The court was also required to make orders regarding changeover arrangements for X.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the best interests of X in relation to his schooling and to make consequential orders regarding changeover arrangements. This involved considering the provisions of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the primary considerations under s.60CC(2) and additional considerations under s.60CC(3). The court was also required to consider the practicalities of school fees and daily travel times.

Her Honour applied the principles for interim decisions, adopting a conservative approach that minimises harm to the child, as outlined in *Marvel v Marvel*. The court considered the legislative pathway as required by *Goode v Goode*, acknowledging that the evidence was untested by cross-examination. Greater weight was given to the considerations under s.60CC(2)(b) and the practical matters of school fees, with B School being significantly less expensive than F School. The court also noted that the Mother had not raised religious affiliation as a reason for X to remain at F School. The court preferred the Father's proposal, which was supported by the Independent Children's Lawyer, finding it to be in the best interests of X.

The court ordered that X be enrolled at B School commencing in Term 1, 2021, and that both parents facilitate X's attendance. Previous orders regarding X's schooling were discharged. Specific changeover arrangements were also ordered, including the use of a 7-Eleven in Suburb E for changeovers not occurring at school. The Mother's application filed on 17 December 2020 was dismissed, and save as provided for in the new orders, the Father's response to application filed on 23 December 2020 was also dismissed. The court also noted particulars of obligations and consequences of contravention under ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and provisions relating to family violence and unrepresented parties.