Duclos and Duclos

In the matter of *Duclos and Duclos*, heard by Watts J, the dispute concerned an application by the husband to vary an existing parenting order. The wife sought to strike out certain words from a Family Report, arguing they were irrelevant and prejudicial to her case. The husband's application sought to vary the parenting orders, and the wife opposed this application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the specific words within the Family Report, referring to the parties' inability to agree on school fees, were relevant to the determination of the parenting orders. The court was required to consider the admissibility and relevance of this information in the context of parenting proceedings.

Watts J reasoned that the inability of the parties to agree on school fees was not a relevant consideration for the court when determining the best interests of the child under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court held that such a statement was likely to be prejudicial and did not assist in assessing the child's welfare. Consequently, the court ordered that the offending words be struck out of the Family Report. The husband's application was otherwise dismissed, and the matter was relisted for mention.