Richmond & Tirado - [2020] FamCA 1044

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Richmond & Tirado [2020] FamCA 1044

File number(s): CAC 695 of 2018

Judgment of: GILL J

Date of judgment: 8 December 2020

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – choice of schooling for the child pending final hearing – where there is a high degree of conflict between the parties – where the child has participated in transition sessions connected to a particular school – where the child has formed an expectation that he will be attending that school – where the child has formed friendships with children who will be attending the school – where additional changes to the child’s schooling arrangements are to be avoided in the context where the mother proposes to relocate interstate on a final basis – costs

Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 117 and 117(2A)

Cases cited: Bilz & Breugelman [2013] FamCA 578

Number of paragraphs: 21

Date of hearing: 8 December 2020

Place: Canberra

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Haddock

Solicitor for the Applicant: KJB Law

Solicitor for the Respondent: Evans Family Lawyers

Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer: Legal Aid, ACT
ORDERS

CAC 695 of 2018

BETWEEN:
MS TIRADO

Applicant

AND:
MR RICHMOND

Respondent

AND:
LEGAL AID

Independent Children’s Lawyer

ORDER MADE BY:

GILL J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.I dismiss the mother's Application in a Case in so far as it relates to X’s schooling arrangements for 2021 as filed on 16 November 2020.
2.The father is entitled to enrol X at the C School and to maintain his enrolment there.

IT IS NOTED THAT
3.The father asserts that he will meet all the school expenses for X in X’s attendance at the C School.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
4.The parties are directed to do all things necessary to ensure that the mother has full authority to contact the school in relation to X and arrangements for X and has any authority usually given to parents to enable the inspection of any records pertaining to X, including but not limited to enrolment records, educational records and records as they pertain to the payment of fees in respect of X.
5.The father’s Application for Costs is dismissed.
6.Each party will bear his or her own costs.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Richmond & Tirado has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GILL J:

These proceedings take place in the context of a highly conflictual relationship between the mother and the father, being a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Richmond & Tirado

Details

AGLC: Richmond & Tirado [2020] FamCA 1044
Case: [2020] FamCA 1044
Decision Date: 8 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Richmond & Tirado*, heard before Gill J, the dispute concerned the schooling arrangements for a child, X, pending a final hearing. The parties, the mother and the father, were in a high degree of conflict regarding X's education. The mother sought to have X enrolled in a particular school for 2021, while the father sought to enrol X at a different school, C School.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine which school X should attend for the upcoming academic year, given the significant conflict between the parents. This determination required the court to consider the child's best interests in the context of the existing circumstances, including the child's participation in transition sessions for a particular school, his expressed expectation of attending that school, and the formation of friendships with peers who would also be attending. The court also had to weigh these factors against the mother's proposed interstate relocation on a final basis.

Gill J reasoned that in circumstances of high parental conflict, it was generally in the child's best interests to avoid further disruption to his schooling arrangements. The court noted that X had participated in transition sessions for a particular school, had formed an expectation of attending it, and had made friendships with children who would be attending. These factors, coupled with the mother's proposed interstate relocation, weighed against making further changes to X's schooling. Consequently, the court dismissed the mother's application concerning X's schooling for 2021.

The court ordered that the father was entitled to enrol X at C School and to maintain his enrolment there.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. I dismiss the mother's Application in a Case in so far as it relates to X’s schooling arrangements for 2021 as filed on 16 November 2020.

2. The father is entitled to enrol X at the C School and to maintain his enrolment there.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	CAC 695 of 2018
Judgment of:	GILL J
Date of judgment:	8 December 2020
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – choice of schooling for the child pending final hearing – where there is a high degree of conflict between the parties – where the child has participated in transition sessions connected to a particular school – where the child has formed an expectation that he will be attending that school – where the child has formed friendships with children who will be attending the school – where additional changes to the child’s schooling arrangements are to be avoided in the context where the mother proposes to relocate interstate on a final basis – costs
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 117 and 117(2A)
Cases cited:	Bilz & Breugelman [2013] FamCA 578
Number of paragraphs:	21
Date of hearing:	8 December 2020
Place:	Canberra
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Haddock
Solicitor for the Applicant:	KJB Law
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Evans Family Lawyers
Solicitor for the Independent Children's Lawyer:	Legal Aid, ACT

CAC 695 of 2018
BETWEEN:	MS TIRADO Applicant
AND:	MR RICHMOND Respondent
AND:	LEGAL AID Independent Children’s Lawyer

ORDER MADE BY:	GILL J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 DECEMBER 2020