Dreyfus and Kearney

[2010] FamCA 1054

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DREYFUS & KEARNEY [2010] FamCA 1054

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Which secondary school the child should attend – Child expressed a clear preference for one school – Child willing to accept parents’ choice of school – Where choice between two upper echelon private boys schools – Where child likely to succeed whichever school is chosen – Where mother has paid all school fees – Where father’s failed to pay child support or school fees  - Where father likely to pay some fees then default – Default would trigger further parental disputation – Others factors discussed

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60B, 60CC

APPLICANT: Mr Dreyfus

RESPONDENT: Ms Kearney

FILE NUMBER: (P)SYC 50 of 2007

DATE DELIVERED: 24 November 2010

PLACE DELIVERED: Newcastle

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: The Hon. Justice Ryan

HEARING DATE: 11 November 2010

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Hauseman

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Hugh J Byrne Family Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Lloyd SC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Newnhams Solicitors

Orders

1. The applicant father and the respondent mother shall enrol the child B born … April 1999 at H School for the purpose of the child attending that school from the commencement of the school year 2011.

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

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER:  (P)SYC 50 of 2007

MR DREYFUS

Applicant

And

MS KEARNEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  

1. This is an application for parenting orders in relation to the parties’ son, B (the child) who was born in April 1999.  The child is due to commence secondary school in 2011.  Ms Kearney (the mother) and Mr Dreyfus (the father) are unable to agree which school the child should attend and thus, the Court must decide.

2. The parties began a relationship in 1997, which ended in December 1998.  They did not cohabit.  The child was born 4 – 5 months after the parties ended their relationship and, since his birth, has lived with the mother.  He has regularly spent time with the father.

3. In 2003 the child commenced pre-kindy at L School.  This is a Catholic school and is where the child has been educated.  Before the child enrolled at L School, the parties discussed his education, including where he would attend school.  The father disagreed with the mother’s notion the child commence school at a fee paying school, which notion he said was ridiculous.  He suggested that the child start school at B Public School and that the mother wait until he was in year 3 or 4 before he enrolled at a private fee paying school. 

4. The mother had researched L School and regarded it as the right choice for the child.  She rejected the father’s state school option.  In the face of her determination, the father refused to sign the child’s application form for L School and told the…