Can a Court Intervene When Parents Disagree on Choice of School?

Written on behalf of Shariff & Associates

When parents disagree on their child’s school, the choice can become contentious. Though courts prefer parties to decide amongst themselves, they have jurisdiction to determine the matter. Courts will determine what is in the best interests of the specific child, which can involve examining each parent’s plan for the child’s education. 

Choice of School is Normally a Parenting Decision

Deciding where a child will attend school is usually left to the parent with decision-making responsibility. However, in cases where both parents exercise joint decision-making responsibility, courts have jurisdiction to settle the matter under section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA). That provides that a court “may by order determine any aspect of the incidents of the right to decision-making responsibility.” 

In Adams v. Adams, a court order provided the mother with sole decision-making responsibility, but the court also had to decide on the children’s schooling. Justice Zisman found there was no justification for the mother not to be entrusted with making the decision and that imposing the court’s determination would interfere with her rights to make a decision. When the parent with decision-making responsibility has acted in the best interests of a child, there is no reason for the court to intervene. Moreover, in Adams, the judge remarked that the more important issue than which school the children attend is that the parents’ conflict ends. 

When courts make decisions under the CLRA, the focus is always on the interests of the children rather than on the interests or rights of the parents. As the court found in Wilson v. Wilson, decisions on the choice of school should be made by looking at the resources that each school provides “in relation to the child’s needs, rather than on their proximity to the residence of one parent or the other, or the convenience that his attendance at the nearest school would entail.” Consequently, a child’s unique needs need to be considered. Additionally, third-party school rankings do not help determine where a specific child should attend. Instead, courts emphasize a holistic approach that looks at the many factors applicable to the parties and their children to determine what is in the child’s best interests. 

Parents Must Consider a Child’s Unique Educational Needs

In Dauber v. Dauber, the parents had joint decision-making responsibility and jointly parented the children equally. The children resided in Brantford and attended a school there for three years. However, the respondent moved to Ingersoll and wished for the children to be registered in a school near her new residence. The applicant opposed this plan and motioned to have the children enrolled in a different Brantford school where he resided with his new partner, leaving the court to determine which school the parties’ children should attend. The judge requested involvement from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and a clinical investigator provided recommendations. That report concluded that both children had struggled, either behaviourally or academically.

Furthermore, one of the children struggled with transitions. The children would be changing schools in either case, but the investigator recommended that the children be enrolled at the father’s preferred school in Brantford. The move to Ingersoll and the change in schools were major changes that could be mitigated by remaining in the same community, and changing communities now could increase stress on the children. 

The respondent admitted that the applicant had been more involved as a parent in locating school and community support for the children to address their specific needs. The judge noted that his ability to continue doing so to the same extent could be impaired if the children were removed from his community at a more remote school. Ultimately, the applicant’s proposal would provide the children an easier transition and continue the educational and therapeutic support they already obtained within their community. The judge looked to Perron v. Perron, and in that case, the court stated that if an aspect of a child’s life, such as the choice of school, is to be disrupted by a court order, there must be a good reason to do so. Before transferring a child to a new school, there should be evidence that a school change would be in the child’s best interests. Based on that, the judge found that if the children were to be disrupted from their community, there must be a good reason to do so. But in this instance, there was no such reason. 

Under the CLRA, respecting a child’s education must be made by considering the child’s best interests. Ultimately, the respondent’s reasons for the change were largely for her convenience rather than the children’s best interests. The respondent argued that the two schools were equivalent in their programs and services and that the children would adapt to any change. However, she failed to consider the unique needs of the children, their behavioural difficulties, developmental issues, and the adverse impact the transition could have on them. Practically, they would also be more remote from their caregivers and other providers, such as doctors and dentists, which could impact their school routine. Overall, the judge was persuaded by the investigator’s recommendation that moving the children from their community could add unnecessary stress. 

School Choice May Help Maintain Cultural Heritage 

The role that an educational program or choice of school can play in promoting or maintaining a child’s cultural and linguistic heritage is a factor that carries some weight. In Perron v. Perron, the mother’s first language was English, and the father’s was French. The court had to determine how important the language of instruction at school should be for the parties’ children. The mother proposed the children should be educated in both languages through a French immersion program. The court found it important to be sensitive to the language of education “where there is only one Francophone parent and the English-speaking parent has been granted custody.” The concern was that the cultural environment of the children could easily be that of the linguistic majority if there were less contact with the other parent. The court indicated that a French immersion program would provide some exposure to French but that instruction could still reflect the majority culture. Instead, in a linguistic minority, French language schools were preferable to French immersion programs to ensure that both languages were maintained at a high level. 

Determining Choice of School is Fact-Specific 

Deciding which school is best for a child involves a very fact-specific analysis. Courts look at the issue of which arrangements will be in a child’s best interest. Courts have identified a range of factors as potentially relevant to the analysis, such as considering which schools or programs can best satisfy academic needs. The desire to ensure stability and avoid difficult transitions can also be significant if there are concerns about a child’s ability to cope with changing schools.

Stouffville Family  Lawyers Providing Trusted Advice on Complex Disputes Regarding Children

The compassionate separation and divorce lawyers at Shariff & Associates in Stouffville have extensive

experience representing clients in family mediation and collaborative family law. Our team diligently advocates for our client’s rights and secures their interests while maintaining a productive and healthy family dynamic as much as possible. To schedule a confidential consultation, please contact us online or call 905-591-4545.