Holinski and Anor and Holinski

[2015] FamCA 184

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HOLINSKI AND ANOR & HOLINSKI [2015] FamCA 184

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – interim parenting – where parents are unable to decide on a preschool for the child – where the child is of school age – where the parents cannot afford the preschool proposed by the mother – where the father proposed to pick the child up from preschool and deliver him to the mother – where the father’s proposal is more practical than the mother’s – best interests of the children.

APPLICANT: Mr & Ms G Holinski

RESPONDENT: Ms Holinski

INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:

FILE NUMBER: PAC 129 of 2013

DATE DELIVERED: Orders:13 February 2015
Reasons: 17 March 2015

PLACE DELIVERED: Parramatta

PLACE HEARD: Parramatta

JUDGMENT OF: Hannam J

HEARING DATE: 13 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Givney

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Turner Freeman Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Dart

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Blackman Legal
SOLICITOR FOR THE INDEPENDENT CHILDREN’S LAWYER:	Ms Hafey, Legal Aid Parramatta

Orders

1. The child L is to commence attending preschool in the week commencing Monday 16 February 2015.  The preschool is to be as agreed between the parties and failing agreement the child is to attend at the H pre-school for at least one day per week and up to 2.5 days per week depending upon available places and the assessment of the professionals at the preschool as the suitable number of days for the child’s attendance.

2. The mother is to deliver the child to preschool on each occasion and the father is to collect him from preschool and deliver him to the mother’s home.

3. Any costs in relation to the child’s attendance at preschool, is to be shared equally between the parties.

4. Each of the parents is to sign such documents as required to facilitate the child’s enrolment and commencement at preschool.

Notation

1. The father has made the preliminary enquiries and arrangements in regard to the child’s enrolment at preschool.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Holinksi and Anor& Holinski has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA

FILE NUMBER: PAC 129 of 2013

Mr and Ms G Holinski

Applicant

And

Ms Holinski

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr and Ms Holinski are engaged in parenting proceedings about their two children, the child who is five and N who is nearly three.

2. Although the child is of an age that he could have commenced school this year, he has still not participated in preschool. Although at an earlier stage of the proceedings the parents (or at least the mother) were contemplating home-schooling the children, it has been agreed for some time that the child should commence preschool this year in preparation for school next year.

3. The parents cannot agree upon which preschool the child should attend. At the end of the first stage of the proceedings, in February 2015, prior to those proceedings being adjourned until May 2015 the parents still had not reached agreement about the preschool. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was of the view that the child should commence preschool as soon as possible and that she had no particular preference in relation to the choice of the preschool itself.

4. The children live with their mother and spend defined time with their father. The parents live approximately 40 minutes apart by car. Both parents own a car and have a driver’s licence. The mother proposes that the child commence at a private preschool near her home and attend one day per week. The father proposes that the child commence at a community based preschool associated with a primary school located approximately half way between the two parents’ homes. He prefers that the child attends the one to two days per week, leading to two and a half days per week within a few months.

5. The advantages of the mother’s proposal are that the preschool she prefers is close to her home. She is concerned that the child’s attendance at the preschool nominated by the father will involve N spending around one hour in the car on the round trip from the mother’s home to the preschool and back, twice a day, on each of the days the child attends preschool. To reduce this impact upon N the father has offered to collect the child from preschool and return him to the mother’s home. The father is a baker who starts work early in the morning and finishes work by the time the child is due to be collected from preschool. This arrangement will minimise N’s time in the car and also has the advantage of the father spending some additional time with the child engaged in an ordinary parenting activity.

6. When the mother first proposed that the child attend the preschool near her home it also appeared that there was the advantage that the child may then progress to attend the primary school associated with that preschool, so that there would be a smooth transition to school for the child. However, although this had been an attractive proposition at first, the mother as I understand it, no longer proposes that the child attend the primary school associated with her preferred preschool. It may be that the mother has recognised the reality that the private primary school is beyond the means of herself and the father. I have concerns, however, that the private preschool she proposes is likewise beyond the financial capacity of herself and the father. The mother has no means of support other than government assistance, and while the father earns an income, it appears to be beyond his means to pay for or share the costs with the mother, of a private preschool.

7. The father has made enquiries about his preferred preschool and there is a position currently available for one day per week, which can increase to a second day reasonably soon. The father’s proposal has the advantage of being more affordable to the parties. His enquiries indicate that it will cost seven dollars per day to be shared between the parties. The father’s proposal also has the advantage that his preferred preschool is a feeder school for a primary school located approximately halfway between the parents. There is accordingly less travel time for both the child and N involved in this proposal. As indicated, the father has also offered to reduce N’s travel time by collecting the child, up from preschool and delivering him to the mother.

8. The only identifiable disadvantage in the father’s proposal is that the children when living with either the mother or the father will not fall within the catchment of the public primary school associated with the father’s preferred preschool. This will involve the parents making an application for the child to be considered as an “out of area” enrolment. At this stage it is not known whether such an enrolment would be successful, but this, in my view, is not sufficiently significant to be a determinative factor.

9. It is a concerning feature of the lack of cooperation of the parents that their failure to identify and agree upon a suitable preschool has resulted in the child not attending any preschool. If a decision is not made immediately the child will continue to miss out on preschool, which could be to his detriment, especially as the evidence indicates he is a shy child and he may find the transition to school difficult.

10. The father’s proposal is in my view, more suitable from a practical point of view, and also has some more advantages from the child’s point of view. It will involve the father in participating in an aspect of the child’s day to day care and the child spending some more time with him. It is also affordable and may ultimately have the advantage of directly leading to the child’s enrolment in an associated primary school.

11. For these reasons I make the orders in relation to the attendance of the child at preschool as proposed by the father.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Hannam delivered on 17 March 2015.

Legal Associate:

Date:  17 March 2015.