The High Court allowed a mother to enrol her 12-year-old son at School B after his parents disagreed about his secondary school, but made the order conditional on financial support and open to later review.
In a judgment delivered on 21 August 2013, Mr Justice Hogan allowed the mother’s appeal from a Circuit Court ruling that had directed the boy’s enrolment at School A. The High Court said the family could not afford School B’s fees from its own resources. The order therefore assumed that School B would waive half the fees and that the mother’s parents would pay the remainder. The father was not required to contribute to additional costs associated with the boy’s attendance.
The parents, identified in the judgment as B.B. and A.A., were separated and joint guardians of two children. Their son, called Conor in the judgment to protect his anonymity, was about to begin secondary school. His older sister, called Ciara, was also given a fictitious name. The judgment withheld the family’s location and the identities of both schools.
Both schools had offered Conor a place. School A was described as a good school, with many of his friends attending and strong public transport links. School B was a private school with a leading academic reputation. The father favoured School A, citing the family’s limited finances and concern that his son might feel isolated among wealthier pupils. The mother argued that School B offered her son the best opportunity. The judgment said Conor wanted to attend School B and had very strong results in reading comprehension and mathematics.
The judge considered the family’s finances, including the father’s recent job loss and the proposed contributions towards the fees. He concluded that School B appeared better suited to the boy’s academic ability, while stressing that this did not mean private education was generally preferable to public education. He also considered the possibility that Conor might feel socially isolated, but did not regard it as a reason to refuse the place.
The court said both parents’ views deserved equal consideration and that it could not make a final, indefinite decision about the child’s education. If the promised fee support did not materialise, the school choice would have to be reconsidered. Either parent could apply, within reason, to vary the order if circumstances changed. The judge also suggested that disputes of this kind would be better resolved through mediation where possible.