16 Jun 2023
On the balance of probabilities the court found that ISF offers a genuine opportunity for L to achieve equal proficiency in English and Chinese, that the change at his young age and entry at Foundation year supports adjustment, and there was no evidence that his European roots would be compromised; therefore enrollment at ISF is in the child’s best interests and the application is granted.
10 Mar 2020
Applying the paramount welfare principle, the judge found bilingual education and improved Chinese competence, the shorter commute and potential psychological benefit of distance from parental conflict outweighed the status quo; extra tuition was unlikely to replicate CIS's dual-language advantage; the child's current expressed wish to attend CIS, considered alongside expert material and the family's circumstances, supported ordering transfer to CIS, to commence in the summer term 2020.
22 Aug 2016
The court applied the paramountcy of the child's best interests and, having regard to school reports and psychological evidence, dismissed the mother's application to move C to School Q and directed that C remain at School R and repeat K2; the court ordered educational assessment and therapy for C and varied access to a week on/week off schedule with specified overnight arrangements and ancillary directions.
19 May 2016
Given H's native English, the risk that German-medium education would be detrimental long-term, GSIS's recommendation to hold H back, expert evidence that H would adapt and perform adequately at Glenealy, and Glenealy's suitable structure and curriculum, the court granted leave for H to commence P1 at Glenealy ESF from August 2016 as being in H's best interests.
20 Jan 2012
Given the parties’ entrenched disagreements and the children’s needs (particularly C’s developmental issues), custody was vested solely in the mother to provide clear ultimate decision‑making while imposing an obligation to consult the father; practical shared care/time‑sharing arrangements (echoing parallel parenting) were ordered with detailed schedules and a medical decision in favour of medication for C was directed nisi (mother may implement Epilim subject to six‑week challenge period).
21 Jun 2004
The judge refused the father's application because, balancing factors affecting Q's welfare, the disruption caused by separating siblings, the children's settled state at IMS, the mother's strong and genuine objections and the timing within acrimonious litigation meant that a transfer to CIS was not in Q's best interests at this time.