Reynolds and Reynolds

This case involved an application to review a decision of a Senior Registrar concerning parenting orders for two children, D and J. The applicant, Mrs Reynolds (the wife), sought to change the children's schools from B College to M School for D and S School for J, commencing in 2007. Mr Reynolds (the husband) opposed this change, advocating for the children to remain at B College. The court was asked to determine the best interests of the children in relation to their schooling, considering the parents' ability to consult and make joint decisions.

The central legal issue was whether the wife should be permitted to change the children's schools, and if so, which schools would be in their best interests. This required the court to consider the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility under section 61DA of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and whether it should be rebutted. The court also had to apply the paramount consideration of the children's best interests under section 60CA and consider the specific factors outlined in section 60CC of the Act.

Cronin J reasoned that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility was not appropriate in this interim matter due to the parents' inability to communicate and consult effectively, the ongoing issues surrounding family violence, and the urgency of the schooling decision. The court found that the wife had borne the greater burden of the children's care and that her financial position made the continued attendance at B College, with its substantial fees and arrears, untenable. Furthermore, the court noted the children's awareness of the proposed school change and their eagerness to attend new schools. The court concluded that it was in the children's best interests for the wife to have the responsibility for making the interim decision regarding their schooling.

Consequently, the court ordered that until further order, the wife was permitted to change the children's schools to M School for D and S School for J, commencing in term one of 2007. The court otherwise dismissed the parties' applications, including those forming the basis of the review process.