Garzelli and Lewis

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of Garzelli & Lewis, considered a dispute between Mr Garzelli (the applicant) and Ms Lewis (the respondent) concerning which primary school their four-year-old child, N, should attend. The parties were engaged in significant parenting proceedings, described as an international relocation case, with the wife seeking to return to the United States with the child, a proposal opposed by the husband. This specific hearing addressed the urgent and discrete issue of N's commencement of primary schooling in 2014, given the parents' inability to reach an agreement.

The court was required to determine the best interests of the child in relation to her schooling, specifically whether she should attend Suburb B Primary School or Suburb E Primary School. This involved assessing the competing arguments of both parents regarding travel time, convenience, the child's existing relationships and familiarity with each area, and the overall stability and suitability of each school. The court also considered the implications of the existing interim parenting orders, which involved significant shared time between the parents and necessitated considerable travel for the child.

Justice Cronin applied the paramount consideration of the child's best interests, as mandated by section 60CA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court considered the factors outlined in section 60CC, noting that the primary considerations of a meaningful relationship with each parent and protection from harm were not contentious. The court found that while the child had relationships with both parents and no safety concerns were raised, the Suburb B area represented a more stable base for the child, having been her primary residence with the husband since birth. The court acknowledged the travel burden for the wife but found it not to be of significant weight in this interim determination, particularly given the child's young age and the likelihood of adjustment. The court also noted that the existing interim parenting orders already involved substantial travel for the child, regardless of the school chosen.

The court ordered that the child, N, attend Suburb B Primary School until further order, finding this to be in her best interests. All other interim applications were dismissed.