Gray & Hull - [2024] FedCFamC2F 1409

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Gray & Hull [2024] FedCFamC2F 1409

File number(s): ADC 2792 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE JENKINS

Date of judgment: 14 October 2024

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for review – unilateral removal from school and enrolment at new school – common intention of parties – views of the child – acrimonious co-parenting relationship – best interests of the child – application for review dismissed

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 65D

Cases cited:
Grella & Jamieson [2017] FamCAFC 21

Re G: Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 462

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 49

Date of hearing: 20 September 2024

Place: Melbourne via Microsoft Teams

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Praolini

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lindbloms Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Cocks

Solicitor for the Respondent: Lynch Meyer Lawyers
ORDERS

ADC 2792 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS GRAY

Applicant

AND:
MS HULL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

14 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review filed by Ms Gray on 21 August 2024 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE JENKINS:

This is an application to review orders made by Senior Judicial Registrar Lewis on 16 August 2024.
The matter concerns one child, X born in 2016 (“X”) whose mothers, Ms Gray and Ms Hull, are in dispute about which school he should attend.
In May 2024 Ms Gray unilaterally removed X from his school, B School where he had been attending since 2019 and enrolled him at C School.
As a consequence, Ms Hull issued these proceedings in June 2024.
Following an interim hearing Senior Judicial Registrar Lewis made orders for Ms Gray to immediately re-enrol X at B School. Ms Gray seeks that this order be discharged as well as the order restraining Ms Gray from enrolling X in any other school.
In addition, Ms Gray proposes certain amendments to the time spend orders to account for the additional travel to the school. Ms Hull opposes the court dealing with the time issues as she was only made aware of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gray & Hull

Details

AGLC: Gray & Hull [2024] FedCFamC2F 1409
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2F 1409
Decision Date: 14 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Gray, the applicant, sought a review of a decision made by Ms Hull, the respondent, to unilaterally remove their child from a school and enrol them in a new school. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms Hull's decision to change the child's school was in the best interests of the child, considering the acrimonious co-parenting relationship between the parties and the views of the child. The court also had to consider the common intention of the parents regarding the child's education and welfare.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the views of the child, the history of the co-parenting relationship, and the circumstances surrounding the decision to change schools. Judge Jenkins concluded that the common intention of the parents, as expressed in their parenting orders, did not specifically address the issue of school choice. However, the court found that the decision to change schools was not in the best interests of the child, given the acrimonious relationship between the parents and the potential impact on the child's welfare. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a stable and supportive environment for the child, particularly in light of the contentious nature of the co-parenting relationship.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the application for review filed by Ms Gray was dismissed. The court upheld the decision of Ms Hull to change the child's school, but emphasised the need for the parties to continue to work together in a cooperative and respectful manner to ensure the child's best interests are prioritised. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering the child's welfare and the dynamics of the co-parenting relationship when making significant decisions about the child's education.

Orders

Orders of the court

ADC 2792 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS GRAY

Applicant

AND:

MS HULL

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE JENKINS

DATE OF ORDER:

14 OCTOBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Application for Review filed by Ms Gray on 21 August 2024 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	ADC 2792 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE JENKINS
Date of judgment:	14 October 2024
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Application for review – unilateral removal from school and enrolment at new school – common intention of parties – views of the child – acrimonious co-parenting relationship – best interests of the child – application for review dismissed
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CA, 60CC, 65D
Cases cited:	Grella & Jamieson [2017] FamCAFC 21 Re G: Children’s Schooling [2000] FamCA 462
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	49
Date of hearing:	20 September 2024
Place:	Melbourne via Microsoft Teams
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Praolini
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Lindbloms Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Cocks
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Lynch Meyer Lawyers

ADC 2792 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS GRAY Applicant
AND:	MS HULL Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE JENKINS
DATE OF ORDER:	14 OCTOBER 2024