��һ�ǿ�����

Primary-aged schoolgirl Bree had her heart set on going to a private school.

She had visited it with her mother and even had a school badge among her prized possessions.

The trouble was, her Hawke’s Bay-based separated parents could not agree on which school she should go to.

Her father wanted her to continue going to a local state school, where he had family ties.

He was concerned about the cost of the private school, estimated to be at least $150,000 over the years she would attend, the long time it would take to do the school run every day, and the “socio-economic fit” for her.

Bree’s mother disagreed and thought the private school would be better for their daughter.

Justice Christine Grice has determined that the girl will stay at her local school. Photo / NZ Herald

She said that she always envisaged a private school education for her “due to the opportunities it would provide”.

The woman secured $16,000 for the first year of fees from her parents, came up with a plan to cover the following years, and led Bree to believe she would be changing to the private school at some stage.

The argument ended up in court.

First, it went to the Family Court, which found in favour of the father’s choice, and then the High Court on appeal.

High Court Justice Christine Grice has now given her decision – upholding the Family Court’s decision that Bree will stay at the state school.

The published version of Justice Grice’s ruling has been anonymised to comply with protections around children’s identities in the Family Court. It uses the fictional name Bree for the girl.

Her mother is referred to as Ms Bridge and her father as Mr Blue.

The decision noted that the Family Court judge had already considered how Bree felt about things, particularly her wish to attend the private school. But this had been influenced by her mother.

Justice Grice wrote that Bree was a happy, bright child with two loving parents.

However, she was aware of the disagreement between them and the associated tensions which “may affect her negatively”.

A lawyer appointed to represent the child by the Family Court prepared a report and made further submissions to the High Court, which expressed concern about her exposure to guardianship disputes.

“Bree disclosed during meetings that her mother had informed her about the [Family Court’s] schooling decision and that her father ‘was not listening to Mummy’,” Justice Grice said.

“[The child’s lawyer] emphasises that Bree should be shielded from such adult matters and recommends that both parents immediately engage in parenting courses to address this issue.”

Justice Grice said that Bridge did not engage in attempts to break the news of the Family Court decision to Bree in an “appropriate manner” and independently told her that she would be attending the local school.

“This was unfortunate, and done in the face of the concerns expressed by both the lawyer for the child and the judge about having these types of discussions with the child.”

Girl happy, has made friends

The lawyer’s report said that Bree has settled at the local school, where the principal confirms she is happy, has made friends, and is participating in lessons at an age-appropriate level.

Bree has shared positive experiences about her friendships and how she enjoyed the playground.

The lawyer concluded that “it remains in Bree’s welfare and best interests to continue at the local school”, Justice Grice said.

The judge also noted that the Family Court judge had expressed concern that Bridge had acted unilaterally in making decisions, and perceived herself as having greater authority than the father.

Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined ��һ�ǿ�����’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay.