EG v JG [2013] EW Misc 21 (CC) (01 December 2013)

EG v JG [2013] EW Misc 21 (CC) (01 December 2013)

It is in the best interests of the children that the mother decides the choice of secondary schools, as her approach better supports their welfare, emotional stability, and future opportunities, and avoids repeated litigation and emotional harm. Delaying for further reports would risk ZG's school placement and unnecessarily involve the children in parental conflict.

Citation
[2013] EW Misc 21 (CC)
Parties
Applicant: EG; Respondent: JG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Specific Issue Order / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Specific Issue Order, Parental Responsibility, School Choice, Religious Upbringing, Welfare of the Child

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EG

Applicant

JG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Specific Issue Order / Judgment After Contested Hearing

  1. 1 Who should decide the secondary school choices for the children?
  2. 2 Should the court delay its decision to obtain further reports on the children's wishes?
  3. 3 Is it in the children's best interests to have the mother decide school choices?

Ratio Decidendi

It is in the best interests of the children that the mother decides the choice of secondary schools, as her approach better supports their welfare, emotional stability, and future opportunities, and avoids repeated litigation and emotional harm. Delaying for further reports would risk ZG's school placement and unnecessarily involve the children in parental conflict.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Mother to decide and make applications for the children's secondary schools, including ZG's immediate application.
  • No order as to costs, but warning given regarding future costs orders if litigation continues.