Halder & Manne
[2021] FamCAFC 169
•31 August 2021
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Halder & Manne [2021] FamCAFC 169
Appeal from: Manne & Halder [2021] FCCA 1297 Appeal number(s): EAA 51 of 2021 File number(s): PAC 211 of 2021 Judgment of: AINSLIE-WALLACE J Date of judgment: 31 August 2021 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – Where the father contends that the primary judge erred in making an order that the child attend a local private school – Where the grounds of appeal were broad and unparticularised – Where no error was established – Where the appeal was dismissed Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Division: Appeal Division Number of paragraphs: 12 Date of hearing: 31 August 2021 Place: Sydney The Appellant No appearance The Respondent Litigant in person ORDERS
EAA 51 of 2021
PAC 211 of 2021APPEAL DIVISION OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: MR HALDER
Appellant
AND: MS MANNE
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
AINSLIE-WALLACE J
DATE OF ORDER:
31 AUGUST 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal EAA 51 of 2021 against the orders made by a Judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 28 April 2021 is 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 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Halder & Manne has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AINSLIE-WALLACE J
Mr Halder (“the father”) appeals from a parenting order made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court on 28 April 2021.
The appealed parenting order provides for X born in 2009 (“the child”) to attend B Private School at C Suburb. X is the younger child of the father and Ms Manne (“the mother”).
After the parties’ separation the child (and his older sibling who is now an adult) lived with the mother in C Suburb. The child spent time with the father each second weekend from after school on Friday until Saturday morning or Sunday night and whenever the father was free during school holidays.
In June 2018, the mother enrolled the child at B Private School to commence in 2019. However, the mother did not consult the father about this, and on hearing that she had enrolled the child at B Private School, the father objected to the child going to that school. Accordingly it seems that the mother considered it better for the child to finish his primary school education and then start at B Private School at the beginning of high school in 2021. The father refused to sign the enrolment form to allow the child to start at the school. Instead he completed an enrolment form for the child to attend D High School. I note here that the burden of school fees, uniform and other costs were the mother’s burden and she at no point sought a contribution to those school expenses from the father.
The school required the father’s consent to the enrolment and it not being given, the mother commenced parenting proceedings. The father filed no documents in response to the mother’s application. When the matter came before the court, a Child Inclusive Conference was ordered. The father did not attend the scheduled interviews although the mother and the child were interviewed for the report.
When the matter came before the primary judge the child had already started school at
B Private School.
After noting that the child spoke positively about his father and said he enjoys the things they do together, it became apparent that the child was not aware that the father wanted him to attend a different school. The primary judge noted that the child wanted to stay at B Private School, saying he had made friends there and was looking forward to school activities already planned. When it was suggested to him that his father wanted him to go to D High School he was reportedly “horrified” because he would have to make new friends, get new books and have a new timetable (at [4]).
The primary judge found that the child had sufficient maturity in the circumstances to understand the effect of changing schools and wanting instead to remain at B Private School. His Honour gave the child’s views considerable weight and clearly considered it in the child’s best interests to remain at B Private School.
The father appealed. The grounds contend that the primary judge failed to properly consider the evidence; the decision was plainly wrong; failed to afford the father procedural fairness and denied him natural justice; gave inadequate reasons and was biased. These broad alleged grounds are unparticularised.
The father did not file a summary of argument as ordered nor did he attend the appeal hearing. He did however, present a document to the registry which is dated 24 June 2021 which records his complaints and concerns about the court process and results ranging from why the court file number had been changed from “PAC 211/2021” to “EAA 51/2021” and he complains that the file number should not have been changed through to an apparent complaint that 50 percent of governmental department workers cannot send their children to private schools and yet his son “…was prosecuted to study from year 7 to year 12 in [B Private School] school in the court order on 3rd February 2021”.
In short the father’s document gives no assistance in understanding the errors asserted in the Notice of Appeal. In those circumstances, and having considered the primary judge’s reasons together with the evidence before him being the mother’s affidavit and the Child Inclusive Report, none of the asserted errors is apparent and I propose to dismiss the appeal.
The appeal will thus be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Ainslie-Wallace. Associate:
Dated: 9 September 2021
0
0
1