Medvitz & Baginski

In the matter of *Medvitz & Baginski*, the applicant mother, Ms Baginski, and the respondent father, Mr Medvitz, were separated parents of an eight-year-old child. The dispute concerned interim parenting orders, specifically relating to the child's schooling and the mother's time with the child. The father, who is the primary carer, had obtained employment and accommodation requiring considerable travel to the child's current specialist private school. The mother sought the child's enrolment in a specialist private school closer to the father's residence, while the father sought enrolment in a public school proximate to their home. The court was also required to consider the mother's application for leave to re-open interim proceedings, which she had sought after substantially amending the relief requested.

The court was required to determine whether to grant the mother leave to re-open the interim proceedings, and if so, to then determine the best interests of the child regarding the competing proposals for schooling and the extent of the mother's time with the child. Central to these determinations was the application of section 60CC of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which mandates that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. The court also considered the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the Act, noting that it was not appropriate to apply this presumption at the interim stage due to unresolved allegations of family violence and differing parental capacities.

McClelland DCJ granted the mother leave to re-open the issues, finding it to be in the child's best interests given the mother had significantly moderated the relief she was seeking. In determining the schooling issue, the court noted that it was not possible to make definitive findings on the merits of the competing school systems at the interim stage. However, the court found that the child's best interests supported a change in school to one proximate to the child's residence. The court relied on expert evidence, including a Family Report by Dr S, which highlighted the father's consistent and competent parenting and the mother's past difficulties with parenting capacity due to mental health challenges, while acknowledging her commitment to treatment and increasing engagement with the child.

Ultimately, the mother's further amended application seeking enrolment in a specialist private school was dismissed. The court ordered that the child be enrolled in Suburb J Public School to commence in Term 3 of 2021, reflecting the father's proposal and the court's finding that this was in the child's best interests at this interim stage. The parties were directed to sign all necessary documents to facilitate this enrolment.