Ealing and Ealing

In the Family Court of Australia, Mrs Ealing (the applicant wife) sought to enrol the parties' four children at A School for Term 3 of 2007, which involved a skiing program. Mr Ealing (the respondent husband) opposed this application. The central dispute concerned whether the children's best interests would be served by this enrolment, particularly given the disruption it might cause to their current schooling and their established routine with their father.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the principles established in *Rice v Asplund* applied, necessitating proof of new facts and circumstances due to a similar, previously dismissed application by the wife. Secondly, and more broadly, the court had to assess whether the proposed enrolment at A School was in the paramount best interests of the children, considering all relevant factors.

Dessau J found that *Rice v Asplund* did not apply as the current application was a discrete, new case brought at a different time and in different circumstances, although the previous application's outcome remained relevant. The court reasoned that while the children were keen skiers and the proposed experience might be enjoyable, it was not imperative for their development. Crucially, the court emphasised the importance of stability, noting the children had already attended three schools in three years and had only been at their current school for five months. Furthermore, the proposed enrolment would significantly disrupt the settled routine of the children spending alternate weekends with their father, who travelled from Queensland to Melbourne for this purpose, and would likely create logistical difficulties.

Consequently, the wife's application was dismissed. The court also ordered that the wife pay the husband's costs of the application, with the sum to be agreed or taxed, and this costs order was stayed until the conclusion of pending property proceedings.