VIC Giving Parenting Orders to the School?

[Familylaw101]

Hi,

I have two questions:

1. Parent A and Parent B have parenting orders regarding shared parental responsibility of their children and decision making. Can Parent A simply hand the parenting orders to their children's school or do they need permission from Parent B to do this?

2. If there are family court proceedings underway regarding the parenting orders made between Parent A and Parent B, does that mean that Parent A cannot give the parenting orders to their children's school or do they need either Parent B's permission or permission from the court?


Thank you in advance

 

[Migz]

Write the actual clause(s) as they are currently written in the orders relating to schooling below.

 

[sammy01]

Unless there is an order that explicitly states the orders are not to be distributed to schools and they rarely do... So no problem here.

As a teacher, it is kinda becoming common practice. Schools hate getting caught up in this s**t.. Remember, back in the day if mum or dad rocked up to the school carnival or whatever and ask to take their kid home. The teacher would say no worries... These days, schools have to worry about access orders and AVO's when the parent asks to take their own kid...

Story time. My ex was dead keen to show the pre-school teachers the avo. Make sure I could not take the kids from pre-school. (and ruin my reputation... Just an added bonus for her). We got consent orders that meant I had to pick the kids up from pre-school. I asked the ex to provide the orders to the pre-school.

She said "Sure, no worries". But Then didn't mention it to them, let alone provide the orders... I rocked up to pick up the kids, I printed off the orders just in case... Sure enough, they call the cops and refuse to let me take the kids. I'm arrested. Handcuffed too... Great fun. But, when the copper looked through my consent orders they let me go. So can you see there might be good reasons as to why the school needs copies of court / consent orders.

 

[Familylaw101]

Hi,

Thanks for the responses so far. I truly don't understand why either parent would need permission from the other but recently Parent A has applied for permission from Parent B for "Leave of Court" to distribute the papers to the school (Parent A disagrees with the school, Parent B does not, Parent A has an intervention order against them, more found by looking at threads attached to this profile).

1. That the long term care, welfare and development of the children include:-
   
   1. Education, including primary, secondary and tertiary;
      
      
   2. Health care, medical and dental issues;
      
      
   3. Religious observance;
      
      
   4. Sporting, cultural and social activities; and
      
      
   5. Travel, including the obtaining of a passport.

1. That in respect of each issue concerning the long term care, welfare and development of the children the Applicant and the Respondent shall:-
   
   1. Consult with the other person in relation to the decision to be made; and
      
      
   2. Make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue;
      
      
   3. Should the parties fail to come to a joint decision the parties will engage the services of a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner for mediation and will equally meet the cost of such mediation.

1. The parties are to communicate with each other directly in relation to the children’s matters and not by an agent or intermediary other than their respective legal representatives.
   

 

[Familylaw101]

3 points, sorry for the slight confusion, pdf to word is a pain at this time of the morning.

 

[Tremaine]

Unless there’s an explicit order restraining either parent from disclosing the parenting orders, then there’s no reason either one can’t give them to the school. Sounds like Parent B may be under the impression (albeit the wrong impression) that disclosure of parenting orders to the school is a major long-term decision subject to parental responsibility, but it’s not.

 

[Familylaw101]

Parent B isn't under any impression. Parent A has been handing them to the children's school prior to this then stopped and applied for leave of court.

I was wondering if it has something to do with parent A covering themselves but me personally I have no idea.

 

[Jake Matherson]

Unless there’s an explicit order restraining either parent from disclosing the parenting orders, then there’s no reason either one can’t give them to the school.

Really?
I question this as I have an explicit order permitting me to supply a copy of the orders with the school and not the other way around.
"That the parties be at liberty to provide a copy of the parenting Orders to the child’s school"

Also I have a few orders that are quite damming of the Ex's character and nothing explicitly telling me I couldn't show those to the school or others. It would be in her best interests that for them to remain private.

Hence why I would think the default position would be you do not have permission to distribute court orders.

Especially if there is a typical Non denigration order or something preventing you from speaking bad about the other parent.

 

[Familylaw101]

Really?
I question this as I have an explicit order permitting me to supply a copy of the orders with the school and not the other way around.
"That the parties be at liberty to provide a copy of the parenting Orders to the child’s school"

Also I have a few orders that are quite damming of the Ex's character and nothing explicitly telling me I couldn't show those to the school or others. It would be in her best interests that for them to remain private.

Hence why I would think the default position would be you do not have permission to distribute court orders.

Thank you and the answer we finally got after seeing the lawyer today was that under section 121 of the family law act (not sure specifically but was advised that's where it is) it states that you cannot openly give the parenting orders to anyone else unless you have their consent or the courts consent.

 

[Tremaine]

This is an interesting topic, it seems like it's still a bit ambiguous such that even the courts have made comments about how s 121 should be interpreted. What constitutes 'any account of any proceedings', as one question, and 'what does the public or a section of the public entail', as another.

Justice Kenny in Hinchcliffe v Commissioner of Police of the Australian Federal Police [2001] FCA 1747 said that 'Before there can be an account of proceedings in the relevant sense, a communication must purport to narrate, describe, retell or recite something that has happened in the proceedings, or something about the proceedings.' It stands to reason that orders are clearly an account of something about the proceedings, so they would be covered by s 121 (I think).

On the matter of what it means to disseminate information to the public, Justice Morling in Re Edelsten; Ex parte Donnelly (1988) 18 FCR 434 said that 'In the context of s 121 ‘disseminates to the public’ should be taken as a reference to widespread communication with the aim of reaching a wide audience. It cannot have been intended by the legislature that the restriction on dissemination should apply, for example, to conversations between a party to Family Court proceedings and a close personal friend.'

Whether a party is considered a 'section of the public' for the purposes of s 121 is seemingly dependent on whether that party has a 'legitimate interest above and beyond any other sections of the public in acquiring that information' (Re W: Publication Application). In that particular case, the matter was about an ICL seeking leave of the court to share a judgement with a contact centre at which supervised visits were intended to take place, and the court said it didn't constitute a breach of s 121 because the contact centre had a legitimate interest in the matter, which meant it wasn't considered a 'section of the public' for the purposes of s 121.

A condition the court has placed on the dissemination of information to a party with a legitimate interest in the matter is that only the information relevant to that party should be disclosed, so a school, for example, doesn't need to see orders about who got the house in property proceedings.

So, anyway, interesting topic - the legislation is a bit ambiguous and there is some clarity provided in case law, but it's obviously better to have leave of the court than risk criminal proceedings for breaching s 121 of the FLA (and of course, always best to follow the advice of your lawyer!