CRISP & HAYES

[2020] FCCA 3359

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CRISP & HAYES [2020] FCCA 3359

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting matter – interim hearing – where parties are in dispute over selection of high school for child – where there is some geographical distance between high school nominations – whether the child should attend a selective school if offered a placement – whether a single expert report order should be made – where single expert report was prepared in previous proceedings – whether the Court should re-appoint expert with prior knowledge of the matter, or a new expert – whether the child’s telephone time during school holidays should be reduced and/or specified – discrete issues – definition of midpoint day and time during school holidays – best interests of the child

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.4, 60CA, 60CC, 61C, 61DA, 62G, 64B, 65D, 69ZL
Family Law Regulations 1984, r.7
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.15

Cases cited:

Atuk v Atuk [2015] FamCA 283
Crisp & Hayes (No.2) [2014] FCCA 3029

Crisp & Hayes [2015] FCCA 315

Newlands & Newlands [2007] FamCA 168
Raymond v Harold [2009] FamCA 155

Re G:Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 462; (2000) 26 Fam LR 143; FLC 93-025

Applicant: MR CRISP

Respondent: MS HAYES

File Number: SYC 747 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Monahan

Hearing date: 22 October 2020

Date of Last Submission: 22 October 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 18 December 2020

REPRESENTATION         

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Longworth

Solicitors for the Applicant: Blanchfield Nicholls

Solicitors for the Respondent:  Ms Morton of Morton Family Lawyers

Solicitors for the Independent Children’s Lawyer: Ms Smith of NSW Legal Aid

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1. The parties do all acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to enrol the child X born in 2008 (“X”) and attend B High School to commence in year 7 in 2021 and in the event that X is offered a place through the selective high school program at C High School (“the selective school”), the parties shall do all acts and things and sign all such documents forthwith as may be required to have X be enrolled in and attend the selective school.

2. Dr D, Child and Family Psychiatrist, be appointed as a Single Expert Witness (“the Single Expert”) to enquire into and report upon matters relating to the welfare of X.

(2A)In the event that Dr D has no capacity to complete such a report within a reasonable timeframe, then the parties thereafter approach Dr E or Dr F, and the expert with the capacity to complete the report earlier be appointed as Single Expert pursuant to these orders.

1. The parties shall:

   (a)Attend all appointments made with the Single Expert.

   (b)Ensure the attendance of X at the times and dates as directed.

   (c)Comply with all reasonable directions and requests made by the Single Expert to assist him or her in the preparation of the Report.

   (d)Do all things to ensure the attendance of their current partner (if any) and any other persons who lives in the same household as the parents, should the Single Expert request to interview said persons.

2. The Single Expert be requested to consider the following matters in preparing the Report:

   (a)the benefit of the child having a meaningful relationship with both of her parents;

   (b)whether the child is at risk of being exposed to any physical or psychological harm from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence;

   (c)any views expressed by the child and any other factors (such as maturity and level of understanding) that may affect the weight to be accorded to those views;

   (d)the relationship between the child and with each of her parents and any other relevant person;

   (e)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has taken or failed to take the opportunity:-

   (i)to participate in making decisions about major long term issues in relation to the child; and

   (ii)    spend time with the child; and

   (iii)   communicate with the child;

   (f)the extent to which each of the child’s parents has fulfilled, or failed to fulfil, the parent’s obligations to maintain the child;

   (g)the likely effect of any change in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either of the parents or any other person with whom the child has been living;

   (h)the practical difficulty and expense of the child spending time with and communicating with either parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis;

   (i)the capacity of each of the child’s parents and any other person, to provide for the needs of the child including their emotional and intellectual needs;

   (j)the maturity, sex, lifestyle and background, including lifestyle, culture and traditions of the child and either of their parents and any other characteristics of the child that the Single Expert thinks is relevant;

   (k)if in the view of the Single Expert the child and parents require family therapy, please specify the type of therapy and the issues that it should target; and

   (l)any other matter the Single Expert considers relevant.

3. The father do all acts and things to deposit into the trust account of Legal Aid NSW the cost of the single expert report fee within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of these orders and that the issue of contribution by the mother to the cost of the report be determined at a later time and not later than the final hearing.

4. The amount deposited by the father pursuant to paragraph 5 herein be applied for payment by Legal Aid NSW to the Single Expert following the issue of a tax invoice by the Single Expert to Legal Aid NSW.

5. The Single Expert not be required to release his or her report to the Court until payment for that report has been made.

6. In the event that the Single Expert is required for cross examination by any party, including the Independent Children’s Lawyer, at any hearing in these proceedings:

   (a)42 days prior to any final hearing dates in the matter, or such lesser time as may be directed, the mother and father do all acts and things to pay into the trust account of Legal Aid NSW, money to cover one half of any payments required to cover the Single Expert’s additional costs;

   (b)Any costs be paid within 7 days of receipt of a Tax Invoice from the Single Expert; and

   (c)In the event that there remain monies available subsequent to the receipt of the memorandum of fees from the Single Expert these monies are to be returned to the father and mother in the proportion of which they were paid into the trust account.

7. Leave be granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to have photocopy access to material produced under subpoena for the purpose of providing same to the Court Expert and the fees in respect of that photocopying be waived.

8. Liberty is granted to the Independent Children’s Lawyer to apply to relist if any issues arise regarding interviews or payment relevant to the Single Expert report.

9. The father and mother do all acts and things to authorise any mental health practitioner attended by the parents and/or the child to speak with the Single Expert.

10. Paragraph 13 of the Orders made 12 December 2014 (and varied by paragraph 1(a) of the Orders made 22 October 2020) be further varied to read as follows:

    “13. For the purposes of changeover:

    a. where changeover is to occur on a school day, that it take place at the child’s school premises; and

    b. where changeover is on a non-school day, it occur at the McDonald’s Restaurant, located at G Street, Suburb Q, and failing agreement in writing, the following apply:

    (i)the changeover time be midday on the first and last days of the holiday period, and

    (ii)The middle day if it is a holiday period with an odd number of days or the “first” middle day if it is a holiday period with an even number of days.”

11. Paragraph 14(c) of the Orders made 12 December 2014 (and varied by paragraph 1(b) of the Orders made 22 October 2020) be further varied to read as follows:

    “During school holidays, each parent be at liberty to telephone X as agreed between the parties in writing and failing agreement:

    (a)each Wednesday and Sunday at 7.30am; and

    (b)on Christmas morning at 9.30am;

    and the parent with the care of X shall ensure that X takes the call.”

AND THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:

1. All extant applications be adjourned to this Court on 16 June 2021 at 9.30am for directions (“the directions hearing”).

2. Any Application in a Case or Objection to Subpoena made returnable by the Registry from the date of these Orders until the date of the next directions hearing will not be heard on that date without the express leave of Judge Monahan, however directions in respect of that Application or Objection may be given.

AND THE COURT NOTES THAT:

(A)These Orders followed an interim hearing heard on 22 October 2020.

(B)These Orders should be read together with the Orders made on 12 December 2014 and 22 October 2020.

(C)The purpose of the directions hearing is to:

(i)consider the Expert report or, if not yet released, the likely release date; and

(ii)in the event that the parties remain in dispute, ascertain the ambit of the dispute and make further directions.

(D)Pursuant to ss.65DA(2) and 62B of the Family Law Act 1975, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders are set out in Annexure A and those particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Crisp & Hayes is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYC 747 of 2013

MR CRISP

Applicant

And

MS HAYES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These short form reasons are being delivered pursuant to section 69ZL of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”) and are also provided to assist the parties to understand the Orders that the Court has made in this matter.

2. The parties, MR CRISP (“father”) and MS HAYES (“the mother”), are in dispute about parenting matters.

3. Their child is X born in 2008 (“X” or “the child”).

4. The parties separated in 2013 and final parenting orders were made on 12 December 2014 (“the final orders”). Although the majority of the final orders were made by consent during the course of a final hearing, the Court was required to make some discrete final orders relevant to X’s primary schooling.[1]

   [1] Crisp & Hayes (No.2) [2014] FCCA 3029.

5. The father commenced these latest proceedings on 4 December 2019 seeking inter alia orders for the parties to enrol the child at H High School commencing in Year 7, 2021 and for a variation to the final orders in relation to changeover during school holidays. The father subsequently amended his Initiating Application on 29 June 2020 to seek additional orders for X to live with him and for the preparation of an expert report.

6. The mother opposes the orders sought by the father.  In her Response filed 23 March 2020, the mother seeks orders for sole parental responsibility and for the child to continue to primarily live with her. The mother also sought a number of interim orders, including an order allowing the child to sit the selective high school placement test.

7. The issues for the Court’s determination in this interim decision are as follow:

   ·First, which school the child should be enrolled in; whether it be H High School (or, in the alternative, J High School), as sought by the father, or B High School (or, subject to intake, C High School), as sought by the mother;

   ·Second, whether a single expert report should be ordered in this matter, and if so, whether the Court should re-appoint Dr D or appoint another expert and in the event the Court makes an order for a single expert report, how the costs of the report should be funded;  

   ·Third, the changeover midpoint and time during school holidays;

   ·Fourth, whether there should be a further variation to paragraph 14(c) of the orders made 12 December 2014 (as varied by paragraph 1(b) of the orders made 22 October 2020) which reduces telephone time to twice per week during the school holidays, as the father seeks, or whether the orders should be retained and enhanced by an outcome that the child be able call the parent she is not otherwise in the care of in accordance with her views.

8. An interim hearing in relation to these issues in dispute proceeded before me on 22 October 2020 by video conference due to COVID-19 protocols. Ms Morton appeared for the mother and Mr Longworth of counsel appeared for the father. Ms Smith of Legal Aid NSW appeared as the Independent Children’s Lawyer (“ICL”).

9. Following the interim hearing, the Court reserved its decision.

Background

1. The father was born in 1966 and he is currently aged 54 years. The mother was born in 1967 and she is currently aged 53 years.

2. The parties married in 2006 and X, now aged 12 years, was born in 2008. The parties separated in 2013 and Judge Scarlett of this Court made final parenting orders by consent in 2014. The final orders provided inter alia for:

   ·the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility;

   ·the child to live with the mother in the Sydney metropolitan area; and for

   ·the child to spend time with father.

3. Judge Scarlett also made orders for the parties to enrol the child in a public school as agreed within a 15 km radius of the father’s Suburb K home, and in default of agreement by January 2015, at K Public School.[2] As the parties were unable to agree on a school to enrol X, the child was enrolled at K Public School where she has remained. I note that the mother filed an urgent Application in a Case on 28 January 2015 seeking to vary the final orders to enable X to be enrolled at L Public School (which I note is approximately 17.5 km from the father’s Suburb K home). This urgent application was opposed by the father. Judge Scarlett dismissed the mother’s application the following day.[3]

   [2] Crisp & Hayes (No.2) [2014] FCCA 3029.

   [3] Crisp & Hayes [2015] FCCA 315.

4. The father remains living in Suburb K and the mother now lives at Suburb C.

5. X is currently in year 6 and will commence high school in 2021. As stated, the parties are in dispute as to which high school X should attend next year.

6. It is uncontroversial that X would be eligible to enrol in H High School or B High School. X sat the NSW Selective High School Placement Test in early 2020 and is currently on a waiting list to attend C High School. She also successfully sat the ‘gifted and talented’ test at B High School.

7. In relation to the parties’ dispute about who should prepare an expert report, if one is required by the Court, the parties advised the Court that, at the time of the interim hearing:

   ·Dr D is available for interviews in December 2020;

   ·Dr E is available in February 2021; and

   ·Dr F is available in April 2021.

8. The interim hearing proceeded before me on 22 October 2020. On that occasion the parties were able to agree that paragraph 13 and paragraph 14(c)  of the final orders be varied to read as follows:

   13. For the purposes of changeover:

   a. where changeover is to occur on a school day, that it take place at the child’s school premises; and

   b. where changeover is on a non-school day, it occur at the McDonald’s Restaurant located at G Street, Suburb Q.

   Paragraph 14(c) be varied to read as follows:

   Each party is at liberty to telephone X every second day at 7.30am during school holidays and the parent with the care of X shall ensure that X takes the call.

9. As stated, following the interim hearing the Court reserved its decision in respect of the discrete issues in dispute.

Proposals

1. The mother, father and the ICL each provided the Court with their Minute of Proposed Orders. In relation to the high school location dispute, I note that the ICL supports the mother’s proposal for the child to attend B High School.

Father

1. In relation to the issues in dispute the father proposes that:

   ·the child be enrolled in H High School (or, in the alternative, J High School);

   ·that Dr D prepare the expert report, and that the parties be equally responsible for the costs of the report (although during submissions the father through his counsel indicated that the father would agree to pay in the first instance, provided the issue of contribution by the mother be determined at a later time, and no later than the final hearing);

   ·that an addition be made to the final orders specifying that the changeover time at the midpoint of the school holiday periods be at 12 noon; and

   ·that Order 14(c) of the final orders be further varied with the effect that phone calls by the parent not currently spending time with X are reduced from every second day to once every Wednesday and Sunday night.

Mother

1. In relation to the issues in dispute the mother proposes that:

   ·the child be enrolled in B High School (or, in the alternative, C High School if the child is offered a place);

   ·that a family report be ordered, but if the Court determines that an expert report is required, then Dr E prepare the expert report and the father initially meet these costs and the issue of the mother’s contribution, if any, be an issue for the final hearing; and

   ·that there be no further change to Order 14(c) of the final orders other than an enhancement allowing the child to call the parent she is not otherwise in the care of in accordance with her views.

ICL

1. In relation to the issues in dispute the ICL proposes that:

   ·the child be enrolled in B High School (or, in the alternative, C High School if the child is offered a place);

   ·that Dr D prepare the expert report, with the father to provide the funds for the report and with the issue of any financial contribution by the mother being determined at the final hearing;

2. As to the discrete issues in dispute regarding the existing final orders, the ICL’s view was:

   ·An order specifying the time for changeover, whether it be 12pm or 1pm or any specific time, in tandem with a definition of the mid-point day during school holidays would assist parties avoid conflict; and

   ·that there be no further change to Order 14(c) of the final orders, save for specifying a particular time and length duration for the calls.

Evidence and submissions

1. The parties and the ICL provided the Court with case outline documents.

Father

1. The father relied on the following documents at the interim hearing:

   ·his Amended Initiating Application filed 29 June 2020;

   ·his affidavit filed 15 October 2020;

   ·his Application in a Case filed 8 October 2020;

   ·his Affidavit filed 8 October 2020; and

   ·the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 31 August 2020.

2. The father also tendered a lengthy electronic tender bundle (Exhibit “AF1”) and there was some dispute between the parties as to a letter on pages 13 and 14 which the Court was asked not to read. The father then tendered a second tender bundle (Exhibit “AF2”). Both bundles are discussed further below at paragraph 28 and 29.  

Mother

1. The mother relied on the following documents at the interim hearing:

   ·her Response filed 23 March 2020;

   ·her Affidavit filed 13 March 2020;

   ·her Affidavit filed 20 October 2020; and

   ·the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 31 August 2020.

2. The mother indicated that she would tender material which had been engrossed by the father’s tender bundles. In response, the Court gave parties 24 hours to review the available tender bundle material and identify to the Court which pages they requested be considered by the Court.

1. I confirm parties sent the relevant correspondence on 23 October 2020 indicating the following tenders:

   Tender Bundle #1 - Exhibit “AF1”

Document	Pages - Father	Pages - Mother	Pages - ICL
Extracts of documents produced by K Public School being school reports for X – 2019 & 2020	Not relied upon
Letter – Blanchfield Nicholls to Morton Family Lawyers 18 October 2020	Not relied upon
Letter – Blanchfield Nicholls to Morton Family Lawyers 16 October 2020	Not relied upon
Transcript – 5 May 2020	15-27
Transcript – 1 September 2020	29-39
Documents produced by Ms M, N Psychology regarding X	44-57, 64-65, 70-74 83, 89, 91, 93, 98	41-110
Documents produced by Ms M, N Psychology regarding the Mother	62-63
Documents produced by Department of Family & Community Services	113-115
Affidavit of Mr Crisp filed 15 September 2020	Not relied upon
Sequence of emails between the Mother and the Father on 2 & 3 July 2015	135-137

Tender Bundle #2 - Exhibit “AF2”

Document	Pages - Father	Pages - Mother	Pages - ICL
Documents produced by K Public School being school reports for X – 8 May 2015	1
NSW Department of Education Policy – Enrolment of Students in NSW Government Schools	3; Clause 1.4

ICL

1. The ICL did not tender any documents at the interim hearing but did rely on the Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum dated 31 August 2020.

Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum

1. As stated, the parties attended a Child Inclusive Conference on 20 August 2020. The relevant family consultant was Ms O and she subsequently provided the Court with a Memorandum dated 31 August 2020, which the Court has read for this hearing. The Memorandum is reproduced in full in Schedule 1 to these reasons and was tendered by the Court as Exhibit “A”.

2. At this point of my reasons, I note that the consultant states that, as X’s primary home is in the Region P and she has a desire to attend a high school local to her mother’s home, it is not unreasonable that she attend either C or B High School. The consultant opines that it is important for X to have clarity in this decision and as X is in her final year of primary school, it is important that this decision be made soon.

3. The consultant also opines that whilst it is important for children to have relationships with both parents, it is also important for their views to be heard. The consultant states that:

   X has indicated she would like to attend a high school local to her mother’s home and reduce the time she spends with her father. For a child of X’s age, it may be that she has developed stronger connections to friends through her weekend activities. However, it may be that X is influenced by the close relationship she has with her mother.

Relevant law

Parenting orders

1. Parenting proceedings are governed by the provisions of Part VII of the Act.

2. Parenting orders are defined in section 64B of the Act, and deal with outcomes relevant to this decision, including the time and circumstances of a child spending time, and communicating, with the parent that the child does not primarily reside with.

3. The power to make a parenting order is found in section 65D(1) of the Act. The power to make a parenting order that “discharges, varies, suspends or revives some or all of an earlier parenting order” is found in section 65D(2) of the Act.

Parental responsibility

1. Parenting orders can also deal with the allocation of parental responsibility. In the absence of the Court making a parenting order, each parent of the child has parental responsibility for their child (see section 61C of the Act). If the Court makes a parenting order, then it must also consider a rebuttable presumption that the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for their child (see section 61DA of the Act).

2. In this case, I note that there is already a final order for the parties to have equal shared parental responsibility.

3. Given the parties’ failure to agree on the child’s high schooling, it falls upon the Court to make the necessary determination, just as the Court was required to do when X started her primary education.

Paramountcy principle

1. Section 60CA of the Act makes it clear for the purposes of making a parenting order, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. What is considered to be in the best interests of the child in a parenting dispute depends on the particular circumstances in each matter, as different circumstances require different outcomes.

2. That all said, to determine the best interests of the child in this case, the Court is required to consider the statutory provisions in light of the available evidence, including the primary and secondary considerations in section 60CC of the Act.

Schooling

1. In relation to the choice of school, there is no presumption in the Act that favours the child’s primary carer choosing the relevant school that the child attends. That said, it is clear that the selection of a school is a long-term parental responsibility matter.

2. I also note that state government schools, and some private schools, require the relevant child to live within the so-called “catchment” area to be able to enrol and attend the chosen school.

3. In the case of Re G: Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 62; [2000] 26 Fam LR at 143 (“Re G: Children’s Schooling”) the Full Court said at paragraph 65:

   65. … we approach the question the wife’s application without any legal presumption that favours acceding to the proposal of the parent with whom the children are living ... Although there is no legal presumption in favour of the residence parent and, correspondingly, no hurdle or onus faced by the other parent, that is not to say that the reality of the children residing predominantly with one parent has no relevance.

4. The Full Court went on to state (at paragraph 69) that a judge must approach the exercise of its discretion on the basis that it is a decision between the competing proposals of the parties determined by reference to the ‘best interests’ principle. 

5. Justice Foster of the Family Court of Australia dealt with this issue, and summarised the relevant authorities, in the case of Atuk & Atuk (2016) FamCA 283. In that decision his Honour cited the relevant passages that I have referred to in Re G: Children’s Schooling and stated the following:

   69.    Cronin J in Kirkland & Granger [2007] FamCA 1471 said at [60]:

   There is little doubt therefore that an impasse between parents relating to both current and future education is a matter within the definition of parental responsibility and one which should the parties not be able to agree upon, a court should step in to their shoes. The Act gives no guidance as to how that decision making process is to occur save that any decision must be in the best interests of the child. Section 65D (1) says that the court may make such parenting order as it thinks proper.

   70.    Young J in Raymond & Harold [2009] FamCA 155 said at [204]:

   … There are many reported decisions of this court dealing with the determination of the appropriate school, the most often cited of which is the decision of the Full Court in Re G: Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 462 where the various factors considered by that court on the schooling issue included:

   ·     the wishes of the child, where appropriate;

   ·     any prior agreement in relation to schooling;

   ·     any change to the existing arrangements;

   ·     any anxiety which the child may experience as a result of changing peer groups;

   ·     the views of the parents about the aspect of change upon the  a child;

   ·     the travel time to school;

   ·     the costs of education;

   ·     any particular issue that may have a real impact upon the child and his immediate schooling and social environment

   The above list of matters are not exhaustive. They vary from case to case and are always to be tailored to the individual needs of the child.

Family and Expert Reports

1. The Act provides for family reports relating to a child to be obtained from a number of situations.[4]

   [4] See sections 55A, section 62G and section 65C of the Act.

2. Section 62G provides that in proceedings under the Act in which the care, welfare and development of the child under the age of 18 is relevant, the Court:

   … may direct a family consultant to give the Court a report on such matters relevant to the proceedings as the Court thinks desirable.

3. The family reports are organised through the Court’s Child Dispute Services and are, generally speaking, funded by the Court without the parties being required to make a financial contribution. The reports are prepared either by an in-house consultant – that is, an employee of the Court, or an external consultant appointed pursuant or under Regulation 7 of the Family Law Regulations 1984. The parties may opt to privately fund an expert to complete such a report.  Increasingly, experts are being appointed by parties in an attempt to expedite the preparation and release of the reports (and that is certainly the case in New South Wales where there are significant delays).

4. Expert reports in parenting matters are ordered pursuant to Regulation 15 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, and this Regulation is similar in form to Chapter 15 of the Family Law Rules 2004. Expert reports are generally required in cases where an investigation by a psychiatrist, a registered psychologist or other type of health professional is needed.  However, as stated, they are becoming increasingly used to expedite the receipt of family reports. 

5. The Court does not fund expert reports, and as a consequence, such reports must be funded by one or both of the parties, subject to any legal aid-related funding. The Court’s power to appoint an expert to prepare a report is found in Regulation 15.09 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, and I note that Regulation 15.11 provides that unless otherwise ordered, the parties are equally responsible for the remuneration and expenses of the expert, and that would include not just the cost of preparing the report, but the professional costs required to attend any hearing.

Discussion and findings

1. The Court will now consider the issues in dispute.

Which high school should the child attend?

1. As stated, the Court needs to determine which school X should be enrolled in noting that the father proposes it be H High School (or, in the alternative, J High School), and the mother proposes B High School (or, subject to intake, C High School). The ICL supports the mother’s proposal.

Father’s submissions

1. The father proposes X attend H High School (“H”) for the following reasons:

   ·First, “H” is close to the father’s home in Suburb K (although the father acknowledges that it is not close to the mother’s home);

   ·Second, the father asks the Court to note that the mother works in the Suburb H area and as such, both parents would be close at hand if an emergency arose for X rather than they both being an hour away as would be the case under the mother’s proposal. The mother would also be able to drive the child to (and collect the child from) “H” on her way and from her place of employment. 

   ·Third, the father submits that the close proximity to X’s school maximises the opportunity for both parents to have a meaningful involvement in X’s school life. The father gives evidence that he has had a significant involvement in X’s school life, attending assemblies, meetings and special events. The father argues that if X were to attend the high school proposed by the mother, then the ‘tyranny of distance’ would have  implications for the father (and arguably both parties) being able to maintain the same level of involvement in X’s school life.

   ·Fourth, X has a strong friendship group at her current school, K Public School, which is a ‘feeder’ school to “H”. The father argues that many of X’s friends and peers will attend H next year, including most likely, her best friend R.

   ·Fifth, “H” is a single sex school that the father believes is important to X’s welfare and development. The father asks the Court to note that both schools proposed by the mother are not same sex schools.

2. In the alternative to “H”, the father proposes X attend J High School. However, the father asks the Court to note that as of 12 August 2020, this school is oversubscribed for ‘out of area’ enrolments for 2021. Nevertheless, the father also submits that the mother could drive the child to and from this school given she would pass the Suburb J area on her way to and from work and that it would be considerably close to the father’s home this reducing the travel burden for the child when she is in his care. 

3. The father asks the Court to consider the views expressed by X to Ms O with caution given the family consultant’s X’s views “may not be her own”. The father also disputes the suggestion referred to by the family consultant in the memorandum (“Exhibit A”) that B High has studies available in the science curriculum (although the father acknowledges that the ‘Practical Experiences for the Science’ course includes science).

4. The father contends that if X is being unduly influenced by the mother, and if the father is correct that the mother has been “strategically orchestrating allegations against him”, then the “reduction in the father’s involvement may remove a level of protection X has against the actions of the Mother in undermining their relationship”.

5. The father asks the Court to note that the mother devotes only five paragraphs to the issue of X’s high school in her affidavit filed 13 March 2020. The father also asks the Court to note that at no point does the mother make any complaint regarding “H”, or indeed any school suggested by the father, and the Court should reasonably infer she has no objection to them. Indeed, the mother’s sole stated reason for preferring either C High School or B High School is that they are closer to her home in Suburb C. In addition, the father asks the Court to note that this affidavit also makes no reference to X having expressed a view in favour of these schools proposed by the mother.

6. The father submits, correctly, that there is no specific provision in the Act which is directed towards the selection of a child’s school. The father acknowledges that the “paramount consideration in section 60CA is the guiding beacon”. The father also acknowledges that the issue of how a child’s wishes or views are to be considered, and the weight attributed to them, has been considered by a variety of authorities including In Re G Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 462 discussed earlier in these reasons. It is clear from the relevant case law that children’s wishes are important where they are soundly based and have been expressed without influence from either parent and are expressed against a background of particular facts and circumstances. That said, the case law is not saying that a child’s wishes cannot be departed from even in such circumstances.

7. In this case, the father argues that whilst X, at 12 years, has expressed a “clear preference” there is no basis for the Court to be confident that the preference is “soundly based and founded upon proper considerations”. To the contrary, Ms O sounds the warning that X’s expressed view may well be a function of influence by the mother. This is particularly so when one notes that a stated reason X offered for preferring B High School (i.e. that the school offered a subject ‘Science Studies’) was false.

Mother’s submissions

1. The mother submits that X has expressed to the family consultant a clear preference to attend a school close to her home in C. The first of X’s choices is C High School, a selective school, and the mother asks the Court to note that the child is number 21 on the reserve list. The second of X’s choices is B High School which is the school identified by the Department of Education as being within the child’s designated intake area (because of the mother’s residence).

2. Whilst the mother acknowledges that has previously worked in the Suburb H area, and has driven X to school in Suburb K, she has deposed to having been working from home since March 2020 (because of Covid-19). Notwithstanding, the mother has still been required to take X to and from Suburb K when the child was not learning from home.

3. The mother argues that her workplace should not be a basis upon which X’s high school is based as that would require the mother to, either, not change her employment, or, not change her employment to an area away from X’s school. Whereas, X attending a high school in her designated intake area where she and the mother reside in a property owned by the mother would provide stability for X.

4. The mother gives evidence that X has been accepted into the ‘Gifted and Talented Program’ at B High School for 2021. She also provides evidence of the opportunities available to X both at C and B.

5. The mother argues that the father’s evidence appears to be that X may be enrolled at Suburb H Girl’s High School if this Court determines that X should live with the Father. That outcome is not one that the father seeks on an interim basis. Rather, X will continue to reside primarily with the mother unless and until an order is made to the contrary upon final hearing which is not likely to occur before 2022 or 2023.

ICL’s submissions

1. The ICL argues that each of the schools nominated by the parties would adequately meet the academic and social needs of X.

2. The ICL submits that:

   ·As X lives with her mother nine (9) nights a fortnight, and spends time with the father five (5) nights a fortnight, she arguably has a connection with both her community in Suburb H and her community in Suburb C.

   ·X’s workload for school will increase once she enters high school and additional strains will be placed on her time.

   ·If X attends H High School she will have a lengthy travel time for the majority of her school days with her primary residence being in Suburb C.

   ·If X attends B or C High School she will be attending school in an area where her primary residence is located and will be less travel for her for the majority of her school days.

   ·X has expressed a wish to attend B or C High School to the family consultant although the weight to be placed on this wish must be guarded in light of the consultant’s opinion that X’s view may be influenced by her mother.

3. In her oral submissions supporting the child attending the schools proposed by the mother, the ICL stated:

   … X attending B or C High School would not limit the time that the father spends with X.  The ICL does not seek any change to the current residential arrangements.  Your Honour, X has extracurricular activities; it is clear from the evidence that each of the parties filed. …  If X was to attend H High School on the days that she was living with her mother, these extracurricular activities could possibly be impacted by the extra travel and her ability to get to training for sports and hobby classes. There is no evidence in this regard.  However, it is in the material that X plays sports and is involved in hobby classes and the ICL notes that these activities would require attendances during the week.

   X has expressed a wish to attend B or C High School to the family consultant. Although, the weight to be placed on this wish must be guarded in light of the consultant’s opinion that X may be influenced by her mother. The family consultant is of the view as X’s primary home is in the Region P and she has a desire to attend a high school local to her mother’s home, it is not unreasonable that she attend either C or B High School. Whilst it is important for children to have relationships with both parents, it is also important for their view to be heard.

Findings

1. Having considered the submissions in light of the available evidence, the Court finds in favour of the joint proposal from the mother and the ICL for X to be enrolled in, and attend, C High School (if she is offered a place), or otherwise, B High School.

1. In this case, the child has expressed a clear view to attend B High School (or C High School assuming a place is offered to her). While the Court acknowledges the possibility that the child may have been influenced by the mother in her forming that view, there are other factors that lead the Court to the conclusion that, failing agreement to the contrary, the child be enrolled and attend one or other of the schools proposed by the mother and the ICL until further order. The other factors include:

   ·the failure by the parties to agree on a suitable school, thus necessitating a judicial decision;

   ·there being no evidence of any prior agreement as to the location of X’s high schooling;

   ·the current location of her primary residence;

   ·the travel time being significantly less for the child for the majority of her school days if her school is based in the Suburb C/Suburb B area; and

   ·the reality that the workload for X’s schooling will increase once she enters high school and therefore arguably place additional pressures on her time.

2. The Court finds accordingly.

Whether a single expert report should be ordered, and if so, whether the Court should re-appoint Dr D or appoint another expert?

1. The second issue requires the Court to determine whether a single expert report should be ordered in this matter, and if so, whether the Court should re-appoint Dr D or appoint another expert and in the event the Court makes an order for a single expert report, how the costs of the report should be funded.

ICL’s submissions

1. The ICL supports the appointment of a single expert and the preparation of a single expert report at this time due to the following concerns:

   ·First, the ICL notes that reports have been made to the Department of Communities and Justice; she further notes that the allegations made to the Department have not been raised with the father and he had not been aware of them until after the commencement of these proceedings.

   ·Second, the ICL submits that, notwithstanding there being a final order for equal shared parental responsibility, the mother unilaterally arranged for X to attend upon a counsellor; and that counselling has occurred in a vacuum without the knowledge or input of the father.

   ·Third, X may be suffering from anxiety and it appears that the child is in a position where she feels that a need to “keep secrets” about what happens in the other parent’s household.

   ·Fourth, the mother has not complied with the final orders requiring that she obtain a referral regarding her mental health.

2. The ICL supports the appointment of Dr D as he appears to have capacity to interview the parties earlier than the other named experts.

3. In relation to funding the report, the ICL proposes that the father meet the costs and that the issue of any financial contribution by the mother be determined at the final hearing. 

Father’s submissions

1. As stated, the father seeks that Dr D be appointed to prepare a single expert report in this matter and that the parties share the cost of the report. That said, during submissions the father would be agreeable to pay Dr D’s costs at the first instance, provided the issue of contribution by the mother be determined at a later time, and by no later than the final hearing.

2. The father asks the Court to note that Dr D prepared a single expert report in this matter in 2013. He also asks the Court to note that this issue has now been raised before the Court on two occasions (being 5 May 2020 and 1 September 2020). On the first occasion, the mother argued through her solicitor that she did not have the funds to pay for the report. On 5 May 2020, the father's legal representative indicated to the Court that the father would be willing to meet the cost of the report in full at first instance. As such, the immediate financial issue is removed for the mother.

3. The father also submits that Dr D’s re-appointment (together with Ms Smith’s re-appointment as ICL) would mean not only that X would be preserved from meeting another ‘new person’ with whom she has to form some degree of confidence, Dr D would have the facility of a longitudinal observation of this family.

Mother’s submissions

1. The mother asks the Court to note that when the father commenced the current proceedings in December 2019, he did not seek any order for X to reside primarily with him and the dispute was primarily a schooling dispute. Consequently, there was no need for an expert report.

2. Given the scope of the current dispute, it remains the mother’s position that a report from a Family Consultant within Child Dispute Services would suffice.

3. In addition, the mother argues that she does not have the financial means to contribute towards the cost of a single expert. Any order for the mother to contribute may result in her having to be self-represented in these proceedings. The mother argues that it is “trite” of the father to suggest that he will pay at first instance but seeks to be reimbursed when that only delays the mother’s contribution, which she says that she cannot afford.

4. That all said, the mother submits that even if the Court was of the view that a single expert should be appointed, then it is the mother’s position that it ought not to be Dr D with whom she did not develop a good rapport during the previous proceedings. Further, any single expert report obtained now would be ‘stale’ by the time of a final hearing date and it is fair to say that neither party is likely to move from their position of seeking primary residence regardless of the recommendation of that report. Accordingly, the mother submits that the parties would be meeting the cost of a single expert report now and then meeting the further cost of an updated report closer to the final hearing.

Findings

1. Having considered the submissions in light of the available evidence, the Court is satisfied that a single expert report is appropriate for this matter. Not only is the evidence about the involvement of the Department of Communities and Justice is concerning but there is an allegation that the mother’s actions are, consciously or unconsciously, negatively influencing the child against the father.

2. As to experts, I am satisfied that Dr D is more than competent to be appointed and I agree with the submissions of the father and the ICL. If Dr D has no capacity to complete such a report within a reasonable timeframe, then the parties can thereafter approach Dr E or Dr F, depending upon who could complete the report earlier.

3. The expert report is to be funded by the father at first instance. I agree with the ICL that the issue of any financial contribution by the mother be determined at the final hearing.

4. The Court finds accordingly.

Whether the changeover midpoint time during school holidays should be defined?

1. As noted, the parties remain in dispute as to whether the changeover midpoint and time during school holidays should be defined in paragraph 13 of the final orders.

Father’s submissions

1. The father submits there is evidence that the parties have had disagreements about the changeover day and time during school holidays. The father therefore seeks orders which specify the day and time for changeover arguing that such a change will provide certainty.

2. Mr Longworth for the father submitted that there should be a set time, 12pm and a defined day (whether it be the second day of the midpoint of the school holidays or whether it be the Saturday) to reduce uncertainty for the child.

Mother’s submissions

1. Ms Morton indicated to the Court that she was unable to obtain her client’s instructions in relation to this issue.

ICL’s submissions

1. The ICL supports the change to the final orders as proposed by the father. The ICL submits that such a change will provide certainty to X and the parties.

2. The ICL asks the Court to note that it is clear from the affidavit material that the parties have had a lot of conflict over the school holiday changeovers.  Consequently, the ICL argues that a specific time, whether it be 12 noon or 1.00pm, and a specific day, whether it be the second day of the midpoint or whether it be the Saturday, would aid certainty and presumably reduce conflict between the parties.

Findings

1. Having considered the submissions in light of the available evidence, the Court agrees with the father and the ICL that there are clear benefits to defining the day and time for school holiday changeovers. The Court will make orders for changeover to occur at 12 noon.

2. As to the definition of the ‘midpoint’ of the school holidays, the Court will adopt the father’s proposed order and alternate the midpoint each even-numbered and odd-numbered year.

3. The Court finds accordingly.

Whether there should be a reduction in telephone communication between the relevant parent and the child during school holidays?

1. The last area in dispute is whether there should be a further variation to paragraph 14(c) of the orders made 12 December 2014 (as varied by the orders made on 22 October 2020), reducing telephone time to twice per week during the school holidays, as the father seeks, or not. In addition, there is an associated issue as to whether the relevant order should be enhanced by an outcome that the child be able call the parent she is not otherwise in the care of in accordance with her views.

Father’s submissions

1. The father argues that his proposal will clarify the capacity of one parent to call X when she is in the other parent’s care and will reduce the potential for any detriment to X. The father argues that there is evidence that the mother has “exploited the lack of clarity in the 2014 Orders”, further serving to undermine the relationship between X and her father.

Mother’s submissions

1. The mother argues that the father “actively restricts X’s access to her mother”. The mother asks the Court to note that the father’s own evidence is that he deleted a ‘Words with Friends’ app because X was communicating with her mother through that app.

2. In addition, the mother asks the Court to note that X has confided to her psychologist that her father does not permit her to contact her mother when she is in his care. The mother argues that has caused X some anxiety.

3. The mother seeks the retention of the current orders for telephone communication and an additional order be included to permit X to contact either parent whenever she wishes to do so.

ICL’s submissions

1. The ICL indicated to the Court that while she had not explored this issue with X, she has considered it. The ICL noted the comments made by the family consultant in the memorandum and X’s comments to her about the telephone time with her mother, while she is in her father’s care. That needs to be balanced against the father’s evidence as to the number of times it is occurring during the school holidays.

2. The ICL proposes that the current order remain as is but that a specified time be added (and I note that the parties were able to agree to the insertion of a specified time in the Orders made at the conclusion of the interim hearing).

Findings

1. Having considered the submissions, the Court agrees with the father that a modest reduction in telephone communication during school holidays to twice per week is appropriate given X’s age and the available evidence. As to form, the Court will adapt the father’s proposed order.

2. Failing any agreement to the contrary, the Court will defer any further changes to the orders that would enable X to call the other parent in accordance with her wishes to such time as when an expert report can be considered and/or at final hearing.

3. The Court finds accordingly. 

Conclusion

1. In this interim decision, the Court has found that:

   ·First, it is in X’s best interests to attend C High School in the event she is offered a place, and in the alternative, B High School;

   ·Second, it is appropriate that an order be made for a single expert report to be prepared in this matter, with Dr D to be re-appointed as the Single Expert, and in the event he is not available within reasonable nearness, then parties can thereafter approach Dr E or Dr F subject to their ability to prepare the report earlier. The issue of the mother’s contribution towards the preparation of the single expert report will be deferred for determination at final hearing, with the father to meet the full costs at first instance;

   ·Third, it is in X’s best interests that paragraph 13 of the final orders made 12 December 2014 include a definition of the ‘midpoint’ day of the school holidays and for the time of changeover to be specified.

   ·Fourth, the Court has determined that it is in the child’s best interests for paragraph 14(c) of the final orders to be further varied, allowing for the time and occurrence of telephone calls to the parent she is not otherwise in the care of during school holidays to be defined, and for such time to be at 7.30am each Wednesday and Sunday.

2. In relation to procedural directions, the matter will return before me on 16 June 2021 to consider the expert report and ascertain if the parties have attended a mediation following its release.  

3. There will be Orders of the Court to reflect these reasons.  

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eight (108) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Monahan

Associate: 

Date: 18 December 2020

Schedule 1

Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum 20 August 2020 (and dated 30 August 2020)

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

• High School: Mr Crisp proposes X attend H High School which is local to his residence. Ms Hayes proposes that X attend C High School as she is on the reserve list, or alternatively attend B High School, both of which are local to her residence

• Live with: Mr Crisp proposes X live with him. Ms Hayes proposes that X continues living with her.

• Spend time: Mr Crisp proposes that the time for X to spend with Ms Hayes be determined by the single expert witness, should one be appointed.  Ms Hayes proposes X’s time with Mr Crisp be reduced as she understands this is X’s wish.

• Parental Responsibility (PR): Mr Crisp proposes that he hold sole PR. Ms Hayes proposes that she hold sole PR. PR is currently shared.

RISK FACTORS

Family violence

• There have been no Apprehended Violence Orders made involving Mr Crisp and Ms Hayes.

• Ms Hayes reported she contacted the police on one occasion after conflict with Mr Crisp. Ms Hayes said she did not proceed with making an official report and was unsure of exactly when this took place.

• Mr Crisp reported their relationship consisted of ongoing conflict. Mr Crisp said they argued regularly. Mr Crisp reported Ms Hayes controlled how he cared for X which caused stress for the family. Mr Crisp partly acknowledged responsibility for the verbal arguments, as he said he raised his voice, swore at Ms Hayes, and spoke to her sarcastically.

• Mr Crisp said since their relationship ended, Ms Hayes has allegedly continued to be controlling in relation to changeovers. Mr Crisp also alleged Ms Hayes is causing stress for himself and X as Ms Hayes reportedly calls to speak to X multiple times per day. 

• Ms Hayes reported Mr Crisp was verbally abusive in their relationship, called her names, and she alleged he shoved her on one occasion. Ms Hayes reported these events did take place in front of X and Mr Crisp’s son. Ms Hayes said she was intimidated by Mr Crisp in their relationship.

• Ms Hayes reported Mr Crisp continues to intimidate her through email communication as he allegedly sends emails criticising her parenting efforts and threatening to monitor her parenting. 

Child safety and wellbeing

• Mr Crisp reported concerns about the well-being of X in Ms Hayes’ care due to his concerns regarding Ms Hayes’ mental health. Mr Crisp alleged Ms Hayes’ mental health issues impact X’s anxiety. Mr Crisp indicated X is vulnerable to further stress and confusion due to alleged messaging Ms Hayes is providing to X about him.

• Mr Crisp alleged Ms Hayes has created a view of him being a predator, abusive, and dangerous to X. Mr Crisp reported concern about the impact this has on X’s moral development and on his relationship with X.

• Ms Hayes reported concern for X’s emotional well-being whilst in the care of Mr Crisp. Ms Hayes said X cannot be herself as she feels she must behave in a way to appease Mr Crisp. Ms Hayes reported X is subjected to denigrating comments about her (Ms Hayes) whilst she is with Mr Crisp and X reportedly is uncomfortable with these comments. Ms Hayes said she is aware of these feelings as X has allegedly told her.

Drugs and alcohol

• There are no identified concerns regarding alcohol or drug use in this matter.

Mental health

• Ms Hayes provided information she was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a consequence of Mr Crisp’s alleged abuse of her. Ms Hayes has seen a psychologist and said she is aware of her mental health needs and acts accordingly. Ms Hayes does not take medication.

• Ms Hayes said she holds some concern about Mr Crisp’s mental health and the impact this may have on X whilst she is in his care. Ms Hayes said she believes Mr Crisp has narcissistic tendencies and is worried about X’s experience of being parented by him.

• Mr Crisp believes Ms Hayes has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Mr Crisp reported he holds concerns that Ms Hayes’ mental health issues causes further anxiety for X.

ADULT RELATIONSHIPS

• The parents separated in 2013 and have co-parented X since this time. X lives with Ms Hayes and spends five nights with Mr Crisp in a fortnight. It appears from both accounts that the co-parenting arrangement is strained due to issues with communication between both parties and ongoing concerns about each other’s parenting of X.

• The parents communicate via email only. 

• Mr Crisp proposes that X attend H High School, so she can continue friendships from primary school as X currently attends K Public School. Mr Crisp proposes that X live with him as he resides close to H High School and he has concerns about X being impacted by Ms Hayes’ alleged mental health issues. 

• Ms Hayes proposes X attend either C High School or B High School as both schools are local to her residence. Ms Hayes reported X has friends in the local area through her sporting activities, and attending a local high school would be beneficial for her sense of community. 

• In relation to Mr Crisp’s proposal of X living with him, Ms Hayes reported concern about this as she believes it is not X’s wish to live with her father. Ms Hayes reported X has repeatedly said that she would prefer not to spend time with her father on the weekend.

• Both parents indicated they were happy for X to be interviewed and share her views. Mr Crisp said he predicts X will say she wants to attend B High School and suggested Ms Hayes has influenced X’s view. Ms Hayes said X is keen to share her views, however said X is worried she will upset her father.

• Mr Crisp said he believes X to have a close relationship with Ms Hayes, however described it as “emotionally over heated”. Mr Crisp acknowledged that mother and daughter relationships can be close.

• Ms Hayes acknowledged Mr Crisp’s positive contribution to X’s life. Ms Hayes said Mr Crisp provides for X, arranges activities she will enjoy, and is thoughtful about the time they spend together. However, Ms Hayes maintains that X wants to spend less time with Mr Crisp.

CHILD

• Mr Crisp described X as “bright and sparky” with an excellent sense of humour. Mr Crisp described X as “leadership material” and a social and academic young person. Ms Hayes described X as an “amazing young lady” and said she is proud of her achievements. Both parents described their relationship with X as positive. Mr Crisp said they both enjoy their time together doing activities together and described their relationship as loving. Ms Hayes said she has a close relationship with X, describing it as respectful and full of love and laughter.

• X was interviewed by the Family Consultant via video conference on 25 August 2020. X was interviewed in the study by herself. X presented as an articulate and engaged 12 year old.

• X spoke freely about her likes and interests. X said she is the school captain and described that as “pretty fun” and likes to hand out awards and help run assemblies. X happily engaged in conversation about her favourite subjects, books, and her pet rabbit.  

• When discussing spending time with her parents, X commented her father organises play dates and activities such as rock climbing when they are together. X said she enjoys the play dates, bike rides and reading at her father’s house. X said she also enjoyed her time with her mother, they like to bake together, swim, and also go for bike rides. X indicated she would like to spend more time on the weekends doing activities such as her sporting activities, swimming and spending time with friends and with her mother. X expressed some disappointment that she was unable to attend sports each week, as every second weekend is spent with her father. X indicated that she wants to represent her team and enjoys the excitement that sports brings.

• It appears X has some awareness of the strain in her parents’ relationship, particularly regarding her father’s view of her mother. X indicated that at times her father makes negative comments about her mother which makes her feel uncomfortable. X said she is unsure of what her mother thinks about her father.

• In relation to high school, it appears X has a clear preference for attending C High School or B High School. X said her first preference is for C High School, as it is a selective school and the school offers science studies as an elective. X said her second preference is for B High School, the school also offers science studies, and she has two friends attending B High School.

• Whilst X indicated she enjoyed some aspects of spending time with her father, it appears she feels more comfortable when spending time with her mother. It seems X would prefer to reduce the amount of time she spends with her father.

ISSUES FOR THE CHILD

• It seems that X and her mother share a close relationship. X’s wish to spend her time with her mother is not unexpected given Ms Hayes is her primary carer. The Family Consultant is of the view that X may have some feelings of conflict about her preference to spend more time with her mother as she expressed concern about her father knowing this information.

• It also seems that X is at a developmental stage where her preferences are aligned with her interests and friends. X indicated she would like to be able to attend her weekend activities in full such as her sporting activities, and being with her mother on the weekends means she could participate each week.

• X has suggested she would like to spend less time with her father and more with her mother. Whilst it appears X and Ms Hayes have a close relationship, it cannot be discounted that X’s view of her father may be influenced by Ms Hayes. However, should X’s views regarding spending time with her father be unheard, this may impact her perception of her father and cause stress in their relationship.

• It seems that X has a reasonable understanding of why she would like to attend the high schools local to her mother’s home instead of the father’s home, as the schools provide subjects she is interested in. However, it may be possible she has been influenced by Ms Hayes’ wishes for X to attend a local high school. X and her mother’s close relationship may be an influencing factor in X’s preference to attend the local high school.

AGREEMENTS REACHED

• No agreements reached.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

• This is a situation where X has been co-parented for seven years and it appears that she has developed a preference for more time in her primary home so she can spend time with friends and engage in activities. This development is common for children of X’s age who are developing friendships and interests outside their immediate family. Additionally, it appears X has a preference to spend more time with her mother as this is a close and positive relationship for her and, as she enters adolescence, she may perceive her relationships and needs are changing.

• If X were to continue living with her mother and attend high school at Suburb C or Suburb B, X could continue to spend time with her father five nights out of a fortnight as is the current arrangement. This arrangement would support X’s wish to attend her preferred schools, allow her continue living with her mother, and provide the opportunity spend time with her father. However as X has indicated she would like to reduce time with her father, she may be unhappy continuing with the same arrangement and this may cause strain in her relationship with Mr Crisp.

• If X were to live with her father and attend high school at Suburb H, X would be able to maintain friendships from primary school and time spent with her mother could potentially be a similar arrangement to five nights in a fortnight. However, given X’s views on her preferred schools and her close relationship with her mother, this may impact her relationships with both her parents and possibly cause stress for X.

• As X’s primary home is in the Region P and she has a desire to attend a high school local to her mother’s home, it is not unreasonable that she attend either C or B High School. It is important for X to have clarity in this decision and as X is in her final year of primary school, it is important this decision is made soon.

• Whilst it is important for children to have relationships with both parents, it is also important for their views to be heard. X has indicated she would like to attend a high school local to her mother’s home and reduce the time she spends with her father. For a child of X’s age, it may be that she has developed stronger connections to friends through her weekend activities. However, it may be that X is influenced by the close relationship she has with her mother.

• It seems that X’s relationships with her parents are complex. X’s relationship with her mother appears to be one of extreme closeness, and her relationship with her father seems strained. Any changes to the time arrangement may need further comprehensive assessment.

• It appears that X has some discomfort with spending time with her father. X expressed a level of concern about her father knowing her views on her preferences for spending more time with Ms Hayes. It seems that the relationship between X and her father may be in need of some support. The Family Consultant was made aware that X has seen a child psychologist to support her with strategies when she spends time with her father. It may be of use for X and Mr Crisp to engage in professional services together to help support the development of their relationship.