PEAK & CASTLES

[2018] FCCA 3705

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PEAK & CASTLES [2018] FCCA 3705

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW –  Parenting – dispute about secondary college child shall attend.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC, 61DA, 65DAA

Cases cited:

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

Blitz & Breugelman [2013] FamCA 578
In the marriage of  Pasio (1978) 26 ALR 132

Applicant: MR PEAK

Respondent: MS CASTLES

File Number: MLC 4617 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Williams

Hearing date: 2 November 2018

Date of Last Submission: 2 November 2018

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 14 December 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Carilile

Solicitors for the Applicant: Doherty & Colleagues Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Duckett

Solicitors for the Respondent: n/a

ORDERS

1. The parties do all acts and things necessary to enrol the child [X] at School 1.

2. [X] attend School 1 for his secondary education, commencing Term 1 2019, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

3. All extant application are dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Peak & Castles is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLC 4617 of 2012

MR PEAK

Applicant

And

MS CASTLES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant is the father and the respondent is the mother of the children [X] born 2006 and [Y] born 2008  (“the children”).

2. The parties are in dispute about the school [X] should attend for his secondary education.

Issues in Dispute

1. The following issues were in dispute in the proceedings:

   i)should [X] attend School 2, as proposed by his father;

   ii)should [X] attend School 1, as proposed by his mother.

Synopsis

1. I have determined that it is in [X]’s best interests that he attend School 1.

2. The reasons for my determination follow.

Background

1. Due to the limited nature of the dispute it is not necessary to comprehensively traverse the relevant factual background.

2. The parties commenced cohabitation on 1997 and married on 2001.

3. [X] was born on 2006 and [Y] was born on 2008.

4. The parties separated on 12 January 2011 and divorced on 12 July 2012.

5. Subsequent to separation, the children have remained living with their mother and spend substantial time with their father, by agreement between the parties.

6. Until February 2014 the mother lived in Suburb A.  [X] attended School 3 in Suburb A. [Y] was not of school-age.

7. In 2014 the mother purchased a property in Suburb B and moved in 2014. [X] then commenced school at School 4 in Suburb B.  [Y] also commenced at School 4.

8. The father asserts that the mother did not provide him with any prior notice of her intention to move and enrolled [X] without his consent.  He did not commence any proceedings as a result of the mother’s move to Suburb B.

The proposals of the parties

The applicant father’s proposal

1. The orders which the father seeks from the court are set out in his Trial Affidavit.

2. They may be summarised as…