KRANE-TAYLOR & KRANE-TAYLOR

[2016] FamCA 273

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KRANE-TAYLOR & KRANE-TAYLOR [2016] FamCA 273

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – Interim applications – issue as to which schools the children should sit entrance and scholarship examinations for– high level of conflict between the parties – orders made for each party to file an application in relation to the selection of schools for the children

FAMILY LAW – INJUNCTIONS – application made by the husband to restrain the wife from disseminating medical, allied health, intellectual and cognitive information in relation to the children to third parties – where the wife has provided excerpts of the family report to third parties – interim orders made for a mutual restraint in the terms sought by the husband

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Krane- Taylor

RESPONDENT: Ms Krane-Taylor

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9006 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 11 April 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Johns J

HEARING DATE: 11 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Dr Ingleby

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Marshalls & Dent

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Dickson QC

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Coote Family Lawyers

Orders

1. That by 4.00pm on 15 April 2016 the husband and the wife each file and serve any further Amended Application upon which they seek to rely with respect to:-

   (a)Selection of schools for B and C; and

   (b)Year level at which it is said that each of the children should commence attendance at schools proposed by them.

2. That by 4.00pm on 18 April 2016 each party provide to Dr D copies of applications filed pursuant to Order 1 hereof.

3. That Dr D prepare an addendum to his previous reports with respect to the parties’ proposals as provided in their Amended applications filed, such addendum to address the matters set out at paragraph 1 of the orders dated 22 December 2015.

4. That:-

   (a)Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall do all acts and things, sign all documents, and consent to the provision of information relating to B born … 2005 (“B”) to E School, required to enrol and facilitate B attending and undertaking the E School Year 7, 2018 entry test (“the Entry Test”), scheduled to take place from 8.15am to 11.15am on Saturday 30 April 2016; and

   (b)B spend time with the applicant husband (“husband”) from after school on Friday 29 April 2016 to 12 noon on Saturday 30 April 2016, with the husband to collect B from school on Friday afternoon and facilitate his attendance at the Entry Test, and then return B to the wife at the conclusion of the time.

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED 

1. That within seven (7) days of the date of this order, the parties shall do all acts and things, sign all documents and consent to the provision of information relating to the children B born … 2005 (“B”) and C born … 2007 (“C”) to F School, required to:-

   (a)Complete application forms before 6 May 2016 required to facilitate B attending, being enrolled in, and undertaking the F School Year 7, 2018 Scholarship Examination administered by EDUTest, scheduled to take place from 9.00am on Saturday 14 May 2016; and

   (b)Complete application forms on or before 6 May 2016 required to facilitate C attending, being enrolled in, and undertaking the F School Year 5, 2018 Scholarship Examination administered by EDUTest, scheduled to take place from 9.00am on Saturday 14 May 2016.

2. That the husband and the wife be and are hereby restrained from disseminating any medical, allied health and intellectual and cognitive information (including but not limited to the reports of Dr D) with respect to B and his sister, C born … 2007 (“C”) without the prior written consent of the other party.

3. That save for prior written agreement between the parties, the husband and the wife be and are hereby restrained from making application/enrolling the children in any ACE, EDUTest and school scholarship testing.

4. That all questions of costs be reserved.

5. That pursuant to s 65DA(2) and s 62B, the particulars of the obligations these orders create and the particulars of the consequences that may follow if a person contravenes these orders and details of who can assist parties adjust to and comply with an order are set out in the Fact Sheet attached hereto and these particulars are included in these orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Krane-Taylor 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 MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 9006 of 2012

Mr Kr- Taylor

Applicant

And

Ms Krane-Taylor

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The matter of Krane-Taylor comes before me today upon the filing of an Application in a Case by the husband seeking orders with respect to arrangements for the parties’ child B to attend upon entrance examinations at E School.  That Application was filed on 24 March 2016 and is supported by an Affidavit filed the same day.  In addition to the orders sought by the husband with respect to B’s presentation for an entrance examination at E School, the husband also seeks orders restraining the wife from disseminating medical, allied health and intellectual and cognitive information regarding the children to third parties without the prior written consent of the husband. Further, the husband seeks a restraint on the wife from making application or enrolling the children in scholarship testing without his prior consent. 

2. The wife has filed a Response to an Application in a Case on 7 April 2016.  That Response is supported by an Affidavit of the wife filed 7 April 2016.  In her Response, the wife seeks orders with respect to B’s attendance the E School entry examination.  She further seeks orders that the children be presented for scholarship examinations at F School, that being the school that children currently attend. Further, the wife seeks orders regarding B attending interviews at G School. 

3. This matter has a long history before me.  A final hearing commenced before me in November of 2015 in relation to both parenting and financial matters.  The financial matters have been adjourned to another date pending further disclosure being completed.  The parenting matters proceeded before me in November.  As well as parenting issues, one of the matters that was before me in November was the question of which schools the children should attend, particularly which school B should attend commencing in year 7.  At the time of trial, it was the husband’s position that B should be permitted to attend E School.  The wife opposed that application, it being her position that both children should continue at F School where they have been in attendance, certainly in relation to C since the commencement of her primary school years.  B he has now been in attendance at that school for a number of years. 

4. I made it clear in the course of that hearing and at subsequent mentions that it was my view that given the applications before me, it was appropriate that the children be presented for all relevant and necessary entrance examinations to ensure that the applications with respect to E School and F School would not be compromised due to a failure of the children to attend such examinations.  Notwithstanding those indications from me, arrangements around B’s attendance at the E School entrance examination continue to be problematic for these parties. 

5. The issue between the parties as at the commencement of the hearing today is not whether B should be presented to attend at the examination, but, rather, who should be responsible for presenting him.  Initially, the wife’s position in correspondence had been that she would be responsible for arranging the attendance.  At this hearing, the wife’s position was that the husband should collect B from her home at 7.30 am on the Saturday morning prior to the examination and that he should then be responsible for taking B to the examination.  The husband’s position is that B should be collected by him after school on the Friday afternoon prior to the exam, and then the husband would take B to the examination which is scheduled to commence at 8.15 am on Saturday morning.

6. There is a high level of distrust between the parties as to these arrangements.  The husband is critical of the manner in which the wife has managed arrangements around the potential enrolment of B at E School.  In particular, he relies upon the refusal of the wife to present B to an orientation afternoon to which B was invited to attend in March of this year.  The wife did not specifically respond to those allegations in her Affidavit filed 7 April 2016.  However, it was confirmed by Mr Dickson appearing on behalf of the wife that the wife had determined that B not attend that orientation afternoon. 

7. Further, the husband is critical of the wife’s unilateral decisions with respect to arrangements by her to have B attend scholarship examinations for G School.  The complaint made by the husband is that he was not informed of the wife’s application to that school or the fact that B was to be presented for that scholarship examination.  Again, quite properly, might I say, Mr Dickson on behalf of the wife firstly conceded during the course of submissions that  the chronology provided by the husband as to the wife’s engagement with G School was accurate and, secondly, he confirmed that the wife’s actions in relation to G School were indeed unilateral actions on her behalf. 

8. The manner in which the wife has conducted herself in terms of those unilateral actions with respect to G School and, further, her decision not to present B for the orientation day at E School in my view highlight the difficulties that the wife seemingly has in supporting the possibility of B attending for the entrance examination at E School.  B is aware of the conflict between his parents around school selection.  In my view, it is important that his exposure to the conflict be minimised.  I can see no advantage to B in there being a change of care arrangements between his parents 45 minutes prior to the commencement of the examination.

9. In my view, it is in B’s best interests that he be collected from school on Friday prior to the examination by the husband, that the husband present him to the examination and return him to the wife’s care at 12 noon following the examination.  Accordingly, in terms of the minute that has been prepared with respect to that issue, I will make an order in the terms of paragraph 1(a), and 1(b) will be amended to provide that B spend time with the applicant husband from after school on Friday 29 April 2016 to 12 noon on Saturday 30 April 2016 with the husband to collect B from school on Friday afternoon and facilitate his attendance at the entry test and then return B to the wife at the conclusion of the time.

10. As noted earlier, the parties have agreed that it is appropriate that the children be presented to the scholarship examinations available at F School.  Accordingly, I will make an order by consent in the terms of paragraph 2 of the minute as provided. 

11. The next issue that I am required to determine relates to whether or not B should be permitted to attend a scholarship interview at G School on a date to be fixed.  The difficulty with that application is that presently, as the case stands, there is no application made on behalf of the wife for B to attend at that school.  The wife’s position at the time of trial was that the children should remain at F School.

12. There was and continues to be no application with respect G School.  What I propose to do in relation to the issue is make an order requiring each of the parties to state with precision in a further amended application what orders they seek with respect to, firstly, the selection of schools for both B and C and, secondly, the year level upon which it is said that each of the children should commence at the proposed schools.  Once the parties have articulated a position, consideration can then be given to what arrangements, if any, should be made with respect to attendance at further interviews or scholarship exams and, further, what evidence needs to be obtained in relation to the proposed schools.

13. The next issue before me relates to the husband’s application with respect to restraints on the wife disseminating medical and other health information with respect to the children to third parties.  That issue arises due to the wife’s corresponding with at least one other school and providing excerpts from the family report prepared by Dr D to that school.  The complaint is made that, firstly, the family report was disseminated to the third party, but further, that it was done so in circumstances where the husband was given no prior notice of the wife’s proposals in that regard. 

14. The family reports have been prepared for a specific purpose and that is these proceedings.  They contain private and personal information to the children.  Further, the report writer provides the information on the basis that the report not be disseminated to any third party and this is clearly stated in the body of the report.  It is inappropriate for any party to disseminate the family report or parts of it to third parties without an order of the court or prior agreement between the parties. 

15. Accordingly, in light of the conflict between the parties, in light of the background and the actions taken by the wife in providing excerpts of the report to schools, I propose to make an order in the following terms: 

    That the husband and the wife be and are hereby restrained from disseminating any medical, allied health and intellectual and cognitive information, including but not limited to the reports of [Dr D] with respect to the children without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of this court.

16. The final issue I am required to determine relates to the children being enrolled in further school scholarship testing.  That application is made against the backdrop of the wife presenting B to G School for such testing without giving notice to the husband of her intention to do so.  The husband deposes in his Affidavit, not only did the wife present B to that testing, but further, he alleges that B was required by his wife to keep his attendance at that test secret.  The wife has not responded to that part of the Affidavit and I make no findings in relation to that issue.  However, if ultimately it is found that that has occurred, it is disturbing.  It is conduct that is clearly contrary to B’s best interests.

17. At this time, I consider it appropriate and in the children’s best interests that there be a limitation on the children attending further testing unless there is agreement between the parties that such testing should occur.  Accordingly, I will make an order in the terms of paragraph 3 of the husband’s Application in the Case, save that it will be a mutual order.  That is that each of the parties be restrained from making application or enrolling the children in testing unless there is prior agreement between the parties that such testing should occur.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Johns delivered on 11 April 2016.

Associate: 

Date:  11 April 2016