Private School
1: Stewart & Stewart [2017] FamCAFC 67 | April 13, 2017
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination, extra-curricular activities, School Fees, Sole Parental Responsibility
Judges: Aldridge JBryant CJChief Justice Diana BryantCoates JJustice Michael KentJustice Murray AldridgeJustice Stephen CoatesKent J
Background: A divorced mother, known by her court appointed pseudonym as Ms Stewart, has sought an Order from the Court that her two children, one boy and one girl, upon reaching high school age, should be enrolled in two prestigious same-sex private schools, the son of which to follow in the father's family tradition, she claimed, and attend the father's and grandfather's alma mater. As the Federal Circuit Court heard the previous year prior the case being appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, the estimated cost of the tuition fees alone, if both children attended private school, would be approximately $50,000 a year. The Court further heard that even without taking into account the extra expenses of a private education and probable fee increases, it would cost up to $300,000 in total to
[Legal Issue]In the original decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Justice Stephen Coates relied on the mother's financial capacity in determining as to whether this case had any merit, and consequently found that Ms Stewart had not established that the cost of private schooling would be affordable.
"The mother said she could afford 40 per cent of the fees, yet on her income, I do not see she has proven her case," he said.
He ruled that the children should attend a government high school, saying they would not be disadvantaged as the state provides "a capable education system".
The judge said the Stewarts' son would cope with not going to the private school "if the mother responsibly handles the situation for the child, even though such an order would be a great disappointment
[Court Orders](1) The application in an appeal filed by the appellant mother on 21 February 2017 is dismissed.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) The appellant mother pay the respondent father’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be assessed.
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination, extra-curricular activities, School Fees, Sole Parental Responsibility
Judges: Aldridge JBryant CJChief Justice Diana BryantCoates JJustice Michael KentJustice Murray AldridgeJustice Stephen CoatesKent J
Background: A divorced mother, known by her court appointed pseudonym as Ms Stewart, has sought an Order from the Court that her two children, one boy and one girl, upon reaching high school age, should be enrolled in two prestigious same-sex private schools, the son of which to follow in the father's family tradition, she claimed, and attend the father's and grandfather's alma mater. As the Federal Circuit Court heard the previous year prior the case being appealed to the Full Court of the Family Court, the estimated cost of the tuition fees alone, if both children attended private school, would be approximately $50,000 a year. The Court further heard that even without taking into account the extra expenses of a private education and probable fee increases, it would cost up to $300,000 in total to
[Legal Issue]In the original decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Justice Stephen Coates relied on the mother's financial capacity in determining as to whether this case had any merit, and consequently found that Ms Stewart had not established that the cost of private schooling would be affordable.
"The mother said she could afford 40 per cent of the fees, yet on her income, I do not see she has proven her case," he said.
He ruled that the children should attend a government high school, saying they would not be disadvantaged as the state provides "a capable education system".
The judge said the Stewarts' son would cope with not going to the private school "if the mother responsibly handles the situation for the child, even though such an order would be a great disappointment
[Court Orders](1) The application in an appeal filed by the appellant mother on 21 February 2017 is dismissed.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) The appellant mother pay the respondent father’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed, or failing agreement, to be assessed.
2: Chan & Phu [2013] FCCA 556 | June 18, 2013
Court or Tribunal: Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Catchwords: Enmeshment, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Sole Parental Responsibility
Judges: Scarlett J
Background: The parents were together for two years until they separated in 2001, when their daughter was only eight months old. The father has remarried. Relations between the pair have been so strained that they have only communicated by email and they have been arguing about which high school she should attend. They have been battling in the courts since 2003, when the Family Court made orders dealing with their daughter’s surname, where she should live and how much contact each parent should have. In 2007 the Family Court ordered the parents should have equal shared custody of their child but she should live primarily with her mother.
[Legal Issue]The Judge observed that even after eleven years since the separation, the Mother appears to have “maintained the rage” against the Father for his actions in leaving the relationship.
As evidenced from her affidavits, her emails to the Father and her oral submission to the Court, the mother sees all of the Father’s actions as being directed against her personally. Her evidence does not suggest that she is able to separate herself and her feelings from the child and the child's needs to have a relationship with her father.
Whilst the Mother claims that the Father is oppositional and exhibits passive-aggressive behaviour, the Father’s evidence suggests otherwise. The email conversation of 29th June 2012 are illustrative of the Father’s claim that he is acting in a manner cond
[Court Orders]Judge Scarlett made interim orders on June 18 that she should live with her father. He said the father should have sole responsibility for making decisions about “major long-term issues” concerning the child’s welfare.
Catchwords: Enmeshment, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Sole Parental Responsibility
Judges: Scarlett J
Background: The parents were together for two years until they separated in 2001, when their daughter was only eight months old. The father has remarried. Relations between the pair have been so strained that they have only communicated by email and they have been arguing about which high school she should attend. They have been battling in the courts since 2003, when the Family Court made orders dealing with their daughter’s surname, where she should live and how much contact each parent should have. In 2007 the Family Court ordered the parents should have equal shared custody of their child but she should live primarily with her mother.
[Legal Issue]The Judge observed that even after eleven years since the separation, the Mother appears to have “maintained the rage” against the Father for his actions in leaving the relationship.
As evidenced from her affidavits, her emails to the Father and her oral submission to the Court, the mother sees all of the Father’s actions as being directed against her personally. Her evidence does not suggest that she is able to separate herself and her feelings from the child and the child's needs to have a relationship with her father.
Whilst the Mother claims that the Father is oppositional and exhibits passive-aggressive behaviour, the Father’s evidence suggests otherwise. The email conversation of 29th June 2012 are illustrative of the Father’s claim that he is acting in a manner cond
[Court Orders]Judge Scarlett made interim orders on June 18 that she should live with her father. He said the father should have sole responsibility for making decisions about “major long-term issues” concerning the child’s welfare.