order prohibiting publication of names or ......they married in 2001 and separated in january 2010,...
TRANSCRIPT
CAVANAGH v CAVANAGH [2017] NZHC 1546 [6 July 2017]
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING
PARTICULARS OF PARTIES. ORDER PROHIBITING SEARCH,
COPYING OR INSPECTION OF THE COURT FILES IN RESPECT OF
WHICH THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT LEAVE OF A
JUDGE ON AN APPLICATION MADE ON NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES.
THIS IS AN ANONYMISED VERSION OF A JUDGMENT AND MAY BE
PUBLISHED IN THIS FORM.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2017-404-000130
[2017] NZHC 1546
BETWEEN
ANNETTE LISA CAVANAGH
Appellant
AND
ROBERT JOHN CAVANAGH
Respondent
Hearing:
10 May 2017
Appearances:
G Cole for the Appellant
C Armstrong for the Respondent
G Askelund as Lawyer for the Child
Judgment:
6 July 2017
JUDGMENT OF HINTON J
This judgment was delivered by me on 6 July 2017 at 11.30 am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
……………………………………………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Counsel/Solicitors:
Gina Cole, Barrister, Auckland
Christine Armstrong, Barrister, North Shore City
Graeme Askelund, Barrister, Auckland
[1] This case is about which school seven-year-old Olivia1 should attend. Her
parents cannot agree. In September 2016, Olivia’s father applied to the Family Court
for directions on this issue under s 46R of the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA).
Olivia’s mother now appeals to this court.
[2] The distinguishing feature of this case is that it involves a choice between
“mainstream” schools and Kura Kaupapa Māori (Māori-language immersion)
schools. This important issue engages s 5(f) of the COCA, and s 20 of the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).
[3] There are three schools to consider on appeal: Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o
Te K (Te K), St P School (St P) and NC School (NC). Te K is a Māori-language
immersion school. St P is a Catholic, state-integrated mainstream school. NC has
three units: mainstream, full immersion and bilingual. In the Family Court, only the
first two schools were considered.
[4] This is unfortunately yet another COCA appeal that is not an appeal, in effect.
Circumstances have changed materially since the Family Court judgment. I did
suggest to counsel that the matter should be referred back to the very experienced
Family Court Judge who heard the evidence and who sits in a Court which
specialises in COCA matters. All counsel were clear they wished me to decide the
case, rather than face the delay of a referral back.
Background
[5] Ms and Mr Cavanagh are Olivia’s parents. Olivia was born in December
2009. Her parents had been together since 1999. They married in 2001 and
separated in January 2010, very shortly after Olivia’s birth. Olivia has two older
brothers: Daniel, born in 1998, and Jamie, born in November 2001. Daniel is
Ms Cavanagh’s son from a previous relationship. Mr Cavanagh adopted him in
2001.
[6] Ms Cavanagh is Māori, I understand of Tainui and Ngāpuhi descent.
Mr Cavanagh is Pākehā. In one of Ms Cavanagh’s affidavits in the Family Court,
1 The names in this judgment have now been anonymised.
she says she grew up in a strong Māori environment and around marae, and has a
deep understanding of tikanga and kaupapa through her grandmother, who was
instrumental in the te reo movement in the 1970s. Mr Cavanagh’s view is that,
during their relationship, Ms Cavanagh did not prioritise her cultural heritage.
[7] Olivia is now fluent in te reo. Ms Cavanagh speaks some te reo, but is not
fluent. Mr Cavanagh does not speak te reo, but he is supportive of the development
of Olivia’s taha Māori (Māori identity).
[8] In the early days following the January 2010 separation, care and
guardianship issues were determined by agreement between Mr and Ms Cavanagh.
They agreed to a week-about shared care arrangement in respect of the
three children.
[9] Also by agreement between them, Olivia attended kōhanga reo (Māori
language early childhood education) for four years, from the ages of one to five.
[10] Some time after the separation, the relationship between Olivia’s parents
deteriorated further.
[11] During 2014, Ms Cavanagh and Mr Cavanagh both looked at a large number
of schools for Olivia to attend the following year. These came down to two options:
Te K, in Rānui, West Auckland, and St M School (St M), a Catholic girls’ school on
the North Shore, already attended by two of Olivia’s cousins. Both parents attended
an open day at Te K. Mr Cavanagh says that, immediately after leaving, he said that
Te K seemed nice, but he disagreed with Olivia’s going to a full immersion te reo
school. The parents had jointly signed an enrolment form for St M. Ms Cavanagh
said that a joint enrolment form had also been signed for Te K, but it was not located.
Mr Cavanagh disagreed there was any such enrolment form. He said he understood
Olivia was going to St M.
[12] On the evening before school commenced, Olivia was in her mother’s care
when her mother advised Mr Cavanagh that Olivia was starting at Te K.
Mr Cavanagh’s evidence was that he was in despair, but considered it would be
harmful to Olivia to challenge the enrolment. Ms Cavanagh said she believed that
Mr Cavanagh had left the decision about choice of schools to her and she had settled
on Te K. Judge Fleming found that Mr Cavanagh “certainly did believe Olivia was
going to St M”.2 She also recorded that in any event, at the least, Ms Cavanagh
accepted that she knew full well, on Olivia’s first day in February 2015, that
Mr Cavanagh did not want Olivia to attend Te K. I see no basis on which I could
disturb either of those findings, nor was there any express appeal to that effect.
[13] Mr Cavanagh did not attend the pōwhiri at Te K. Ms Cavanagh dropped
Olivia off and picked her up from school for the first few months, if not longer.
[14] Tensions continued to escalate between Ms and Mr Cavanagh after Olivia’s
enrolment at Te K. On 7 May 2015, Ms Cavanagh applied for, and obtained, an
interim parenting order granting her the day-to-day care of Jamie and Olivia,
reserving to Mr Cavanagh supervised contact, by a person approved by the Court.
Ms Cavanagh also applied for a protection order on a without notice basis, alleging
that Mr Cavanagh had used verbal and physical violence against her and the
children, and that the children were at risk in his care. The application was declined.
[15] In his affidavits responding to Ms Cavanagh’s application for a parenting
order, Mr Cavanagh raised his concerns over her unilateral schooling arrangements
for Olivia. Those allegations were noted by Judge Burns in a preparatory ruling
made in advance of the defended hearing of Ms Cavanagh’s applications. The Judge
expressed concern about the lack of consultation.3
[16] On 30 October 2015, partway through a defended hearing, Ms Cavanagh
agreed to withdraw her parenting application and agreed that they would return to
sharing Olivia’s day-to-day care equally on a week-about basis. The Family Court
made a final parenting order by consent.4
[17] Mr Cavanagh remained opposed to the full immersion schooling. He said he
felt marginalised at Te K and unable to be involved in his daughter’s education. This
2 [citation redacted].
3 [citation redacted].
4 [citation redacted].
related in particular to the fact the whole school experience was in te reo. He was
also concerned about Olivia’s academic achievement and that the school did not fall
under the National Standards, which he had wanted for Olivia.
The application and response
[18] On 23 September 2016, Mr Cavanagh filed the application under s 46R of the
COCA, seeking a guardianship direction to change Olivia’s school.
[19] Mr Cavanagh says the dispute over care of the children and domestic
violence allegations prevented him from contesting the change of schooling earlier.
I note that the earlier proceeding seems to have been resolved by November 2015,
although I accept there may well have been ongoing issues, given the nature of the
proceeding, and Mr Cavanagh would have been reluctant to engage again with the
Court process.
[20] In the application, Mr Cavanagh sought that Olivia attend St M. Some
months later he put forward St P as an alternative. His application recorded that he
was not fixated on a Catholic school, but wanted a school that promoted
National Standards, and in which, as he put it, both parents could participate.
[21] On 26 September 2016, Ms Cavanagh filed an affidavit in response to
Mr Cavanagh’s application. She sought to retain the status quo and for Olivia to
remain at Te K until Year 13. She did not raise any other schooling options.
Ms Cavanagh spelt out that Olivia loved it at Te K and the many advantages of the
school, which I discuss later.
The Family Court judgments and Ms Cavanagh’s bilingual schools proposal
[22] Due to the developments that had occurred in this matter by the time it came
before this Court, the substance of the Family Court judgments is of lesser relevance.
Nevertheless, I summarise the series of decisions leading to this appeal below.
The 26 January Judgment
[23] On Thursday 26 January 2017, at the defended hearing of the s 46R
application, Judge Fleming was asked to make an immediate decision as the school
year began the next Monday.
[24] At the end of that day, the Judge delivered an oral judgment, finding that it
was in Olivia’s best interests to be enrolled in a “non-immersion mainstream school
for 2017 and thereafter”, but said she needed further submissions as to how to
determine which school.5 The 26 January interim judgment does not record which
mainstream schools the Family Court Judge had been weighing up that day, but it
appears she was going to make a direction that Olivia attend one of three schools:
RR Primary, M Primary or St P.6 The Judge directed that the case be listed again on
Friday 27 January 2017, to allow the parties to give some consideration as to which
would be the best school for Olivia to attend.
The 27 January Minute
[25] On the morning of 27 January 2017, Ms Cole, counsel for Ms Cavanagh,
proposed two further schools that had bilingual and immersion units: NC and RB
School. Both schools had that day provided letters stating they were able to offer
Olivia a place in both their full immersion and bilingual units.
[26] As it is important to this appeal, I record that in Ms Cole’s memorandum
dated 27 January 2017, which advanced the two bilingual schools, she had this to say
with regard to NC:
5 [citation redacted].
6 The Judge said that the third option of St P had come out of some additional submissions that
Olivia’s lawyer had made at the conclusion of the hearing. I have noted it was also raised in an
earlier affidavit of Mr Cavanagh.
(a) [Ms Cavanagh] has made contact with the enrolments and interview
team at the school, and sent in Olivia’s certificates, school reports,
audio speech in Te Reo, and other supporting documents to aid in a
speedy enrolment. It is understood that Olivia is a prime candidate for
acceptance into the school as an out of zone student as she is a fluent
speaker of Te Reo Māori;
(b) NC School students are in the high 85% bracket of students at or
above National Standards;
(c) The school has a full immersion Māori unit, Bilingual Māori Unit, and
Mainstream all under the National Standards;
(d) The school is new to [Mr C] and [Ms C], a fresh start;
(e) The school focuses on English along with Māori language;
(f) Olivia will transition more easily from full immersion to mainstream
within the Māori/Bilingual Unit at the school;
(g) The roll is reasonably small at 270 students with 51% girls, which will
also make transition easier for Olivia;
(h) All notices are in Māori and English;
(i) The school demographics represent both Olivia’s ethnicities of Māori
and Pākehā;
(j) The school embraces bicultural parents and values;
(k) The school has an excellent reputation and ERO report;
(l) The school will support Olivia’s transition from Kura Kaupapa into
mainstream as it has expertise in Te Reo, and Māoritanga, and
National Standards.
[27] Mr Cavanagh and Mr Askelund both opposed the new proposal on the basis
they had no opportunity to consider it.
[28] The Judge issued a minute stating it was very important to note that
Ms Cavanagh had known of the application for some months, and had not previously
put forward any other options. Her position at the hearing had been that she was not
prepared to consider any option other than Te K. The Judge said the reason for
adjourning after the first judgment was to give Mr and Ms Cavanagh an opportunity
to reach a consensus on the three schools already in the pool.
[29] Judge Fleming said she would not entertain submissions on NC and RB
School on the basis that, first, Mr Cavanagh had not had an opportunity to consider
the suitability of the two schools (or whether bilingual teaching would be suitable for
Olivia in future) and, second, that she had no evidence about either of the schools.7
She said it was not appropriate to defer the decision as Olivia was due to start school
the next week-day.
The 27 January Judgment
[30] Later on Friday 27 January, the Judge decided, in a second oral judgment in
two days, that Olivia should attend St P, being the school with the highest academic
achievement of the three mainstream schools she was considering, and because it
involved the least travel for Olivia.8
This appeal
[31] This appeal is against the three decisions of the Family Court: the 26 January
2017 judgment, the 27 January 2017 Minute (declining to consider Ms Cavanagh’s
two new proposals) and the 27 January 2017 judgment. Leave to appeal has already
been granted, which was necessary because the decisions were under s 46R.
[32] The appeal is brought pursuant to s 143 of the COCA. An appeal under s 143
is a general appeal that is governed by the principles set out by the Supreme Court in
Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitchting Lodestar.9 Essentially, the appellate court is
required to make its own assessment of the merits of the case. I am able to make any
decision I consider should have been made by the Family Court.10
[33] I therefore need to make my own decision, having due, but not undue, regard
to the fact that the Family Court Judge heard the evidence, and to the clear expertise
of that Court in COCA matters. Nothing much turns on this in any event because, as
I say, the case is materially different to the case in the Family Court. That is due to
two material developments.
7 [citation redacted].
8 [citation redacted].
9 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitchting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141.
10 High Court Rules 2016, r 20.19.
[34] The first material development is that Olivia’s lawyer, Mr Askelund, now
wishes the Court to consider NC, one of the bilingual schools proposed by
Ms Cavanagh in January. He raised this on 8 May 2017, just two days before this
hearing. Mr Askelund sought, retrospectively, to frame Judge Fleming’s declining to
consider the bilingual option as an “error”, because it deprived Olivia of the
opportunity to continue her schooling in a bilingual unit (within the National
Standards framework). Mr Askelund acknowledged the severe restraints under
which the Judge was operating and the fact she had little choice at the time.
Mr Askelund had obtained verbal confirmation from the Principal at NC that, as at
2 May 2017, placements remained for Olivia in both Te Whānau Rumaki o Te Uru
Karaka (the full immersion unit) and Te Whānau Awahou o Te Uru Karaka (the
bilingual unit).
[35] Mr Cavanagh’s position, recorded by his counsel Ms Armstrong on 9 May
2017, was that while St P was still his preference, he would compromise and agree to
Olivia’s starting immediately in the NC bilingual unit. The letter from
Ms Armstrong records that this would enable both parties to be involved, and end
conflict for Olivia.
[36] At the outset of this hearing on 10 May, Ms Cole advised that Ms Cavanagh
no longer supports NC. Ms Cole said that Ms Cavanagh raised the two bilingual
schools on 27 January 2017 out of desperation because of the 26 January judgment
(that Olivia attend a mainstream school), and because Ms Cavanagh was trying to
find a compromise. She said Ms Cavanagh has since researched these schools and
no longer supports the concept of a bilingual unit because it is still in a mainstream
setting and bilingual children do not do well, particularly in becoming fluent in te
reo. She also said it is a considerable distance from Ms Cavanagh’s home to NC.
Last, but I would not think least, NC would also now be a third school for Olivia to
attend.
[37] I asked Ms Cole which of the three schools was Ms Cavanagh’s second
priority. She said that she would take instructions. Later in the day Ms Cole told me
that Ms Cavanagh saw only one option: Te K. In other words, Ms Cavanagh had
reverted to the position she took in the Family Court up until immediately after the
26 January 2017 judgment.
[38] Given that NC was proposed by Ms Cavanagh in the first place and given
Mr Cavanagh and Mr Askelund’s changed positions, I consider that I must now take
NC into account. It would be unrealistic not to do so. I will later discuss the various
parties’ reasons for supporting, and not supporting, each option.
[39] The second material development is that Muir J earlier granted Ms Cavanagh
leave to call new evidence of Marama T, Acting Principal of Te K, and granted
Mr Cavanagh leave in turn to call evidence from Mary Therese Z, Principal of St P.
I incorporate some parts of that evidence in my assessment of the options.
[40] It necessarily follows that the decisions of 26 and 27 January 2017 are
surpassed to a material extent. I need to consider the three options before me, as the
Family Court Judge unquestionably would have, had she and the parties had
adequate opportunity to do so.
Law
Guardianship disputes
[41] Section 16 of the COCA deals with the exercise of guardianship.
Subsection (1) provides that the duties, powers, rights and responsibilities of a
guardian of a child include, relevantly, the guardian’s:
…
(b) contributing to the child’s intellectual, emotional, physical, social,
cultural, and other personal development; and
(c) determining for or with the child, or helping the child to determine,
questions about important matters affecting the child.
[42] “Important matters affecting the child” expressly includes where and how the
child is to be educated (s 16(2)(d)), and the child’s culture and language (s 16(2)(e)).
[43] Particularly pertinent in the present case, s 16 requires that in exercising their
duties and responsibilities, “a guardian of the child must act jointly (in particular, by
consulting wherever practicable with the aim of securing agreement) with any other
guardians of the child” (s 16(5)).
[44] Where disputes arise about the exercise of guardianship, s 46R provides for
the application made by Mr Cavanagh:
46R Disputes between guardians
(1) If 2 or more guardians of a child are unable to agree on a matter
concerning the exercise of their guardianship, any of them may
apply to the court for its direction.
…
(4) On an application under subsection (1), the court may make any
order relating to the matter that it thinks proper.
[45] Directions made under s 46R must reflect the purpose of the COCA, as stated
in s 3, which is to:
(a) promote children’s welfare and best interests, and facilitate their
development, by helping to ensure that appropriate arrangements are
in place for their guardianship and care; and
(b) recognise certain rights of children.
[46] In addition, any direction made under s 46R must reflect the paramountcy
principle. That is contained in s 4 of the COCA, which requires that the welfare and
best interests of Olivia, in her particular circumstances, must be the first and
paramount consideration. The focus is on what is best for her, not for her parents, or
either of them. There is obviously, however, some overlap. The child-parent
relationship is important, as can be seen throughout the Act, and in particular in s 5.11
[47] Sections 5 and 6 of the COCA are important.
[48] As some discussion is required regarding s 5, I first address s 6. In relation to
proceedings involving guardianship of a child (including appeals), s 6 requires that
any views expressed by the child (either directly or through a representative) must be
11
K v B [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1, at [7] per Elias CJ.
taken into account. That encompasses more than just the child’s wishes.12
While the
expression “taken into account” is stronger than the common statutory formula “have
regard to”, it does not go so far as to render the child’s views determinative.13
The
decision is for the Court, not the child.
[49] The principles relating to a child’s welfare and best interests are set out in s 5.
All but (a), which relates to protecting a child’s safety, are engaged in this case. The
relevant principles are:
(a) Section 5(b): a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be
primarily the responsibility of his or her parents.
(b) Section 5(c): a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be
facilitated by ongoing consultation and co-operation between his or
her parents.
(c) Section 5(d): a child should have continuity in his or her care,
development, and upbringing.
(d) Section 5(e): a child should continue to have a relationship with both
of his or her parents, and a child’s relationship with his or her family
group, whānau, hapū, or iwi should be preserved and strengthened.
(e) Section 5(f): a child’s identity (including his or her culture and
language) should be preserved and strengthened.
[50] When determining what outcome will best serve the welfare and best
interests of the particular child in their particular circumstances, the s 5 principles
must each be examined to see if they are relevant, and if they are, must be taken into
account along with any other relevant matters. As the Supreme Court observed in
K v B, it is self-evident that individual principles may have a greater or lesser
12
C v S [2006] 3 NZLR 420 (HC) at [31(e)]. 13
At [31(h)]. See also Brown v Argyll [2006] NZFLR 705 (HC) at [49], where Priestley J aptly
observes: “Human beings are frequently not the best arbiters of their own best interests.
Children, who have yet to develop to adulthood and are so frequently the casualties of parental
conflict, are no exception to that truism.”
significance in the decision-making process, depending on the circumstances of
individual cases.14
[51] In terms of ss 5(e) and (f), I note that when s 5 was inserted into the Care of
Children Bill by the Justice and Electoral Committee, references to whānau, hapū
and iwi appear to have been intended to recognise the fact that “an integral part of
the context of a child’s best interests is the child’s family and culture, which may
include members of the child’s wider family”.15
I return to this point later.
[52] I have received extensive submissions on the principles in ss 5(e) and (f)
from Ms Cole. She points out that these subsections and the present facts require
consideration of s 20 of the NZBORA:
A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in
New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other
members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practise the
religion, or to use the language, of that minority.
[53] Ms Cole notes that this is derived from art 27 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and refers me to United Nations Human
Rights Committee (UNHCR) jurisprudence that establishes that significant
interference with the enjoyment of culture may amount to a violation of art 27 of the
ICCPR. To that, I add that Elias CJ in Takamore v Clarke has recognised with
reference to s 20 that “[c]ultural identification is an aspect of human dignity and
always an important consideration where it is raised”.16
[54] In addition to the ICCPR, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Children (UNCROC), to which the s 5 principles are relevant,17
includes two articles
of assistance:
(a) Article 29(c) provides that the education of the child shall be directed
to the development of respect for the child’s own cultural identity,
language and values.
14
K v B, above n 10, at [19] per Tipping J. 15
Care of Children Bill 2003 (54-2) (Select Committee Report) at 3. 16
Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116, [2013] 2 NZLR 733 at [12]. 17
Care of Children Bill 2003 (54-2) (Select Committee Report) at 3.
(b) Article 30 provides that, in States where persons of indigenous origin
exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall
not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or
her group, to enjoy his or her own culture or to use his or her own
language.
[55] Ms Cole also refers me to Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016 (Māori Language
Act 2016). In that Act, Parliament expressly affirms the status of te reo Māori as the
indigenous language of New Zealand; a taonga of iwi and Māori; a language valued
by the nation and an official language of New Zealand. The Act is meant to provide
a means to support and revitalise the Māori language. The Act also contains the
Crown’s acknowledgement of the detrimental effects of its past policies and
practices that have over the generations failed to actively protect and promote the
Māori language and encourage its use by Māori (s 6).
[56] Obviously I have to apply the provisions of the COCA, including s 5(f), and
all of the other s 5 principles. But it is helpful to be reminded that s 5(f) in particular
sits within a larger mandate.
[57] Ms Cole refers me to Hanley v Pihama and I have been able to locate two
other Family Court decisions which consider a child attending Kura Kaupapa
Māori.18
I am sure there are more. Ms Cole sought to place some emphasis on
Hanley v Pihama and the decision there by Judge Boshier on the facts of that case, in
favour of the Kura. I agree with that decision and with the outcomes in the other two
cases. But while these decisions make interesting reading, they mainly demonstrate
that each case turns on the child’s particular circumstances. The circumstances in
each are quite different to Olivia’s circumstances.
18
Hanley v Pihama FC Auckland FP004/2003-004-1475, 19 January 2004; JSK v TGK FC
Invercargill FAM-2010-025-144, 27 January 2011; DSW v ATTA [2013] NZFC 406.
Te K, St P, or NC?
[58] I now turn to which of the three schools it is in the welfare and best interests
of Olivia to attend. I will approach the case by considering the position for Olivia
with each of these schools, addressing, among other things, the factors in s 5 and
Olivia’s views.
Te K
[59] Te K is a small Te Aho Matua kura in Rānui. It has approximately
100 students from Year 1 to Year 13. The children are in open plan classrooms. The
school is apparently very attractive and has extensive views from its hilltop position
overlooking Auckland.
[60] At Te K, according to Ms T’s evidence, classes are taught in te reo Māori and
the school incorporates a Māori world-view into all learning. That reaches from
reinforcing children’s whakapapa (genealogy) and relationships with whānau, hapū
and iwi, through to emphasising the study of historical, cultural, political and other
events that are integral parts of Māori heritage, and to promoting kaitiakitanga
(guardianship and protection) of the natural environment. She provided impressive
snapshots of things Te K do, including robust reading and writing programmes,
many sporting activities, performances and gardening projects. Her affidavit speaks
to the unique pedagogy of Te K, and its advantages for enhancing a child’s identity
as Māori.
[61] I accept Ms Cole’s proposition that Olivia would more readily move into
Māori leadership roles later on if she were educated at Te K. That would be an
exciting prospect.
[62] Te K features strongly in providing continuity for Olivia. She had been there
for two years until she started at St P at the beginning of this year. Ms T (and
Ms Cole in her submissions), makes the point that Olivia has developed a kura
whānau, especially through the school’s promotion of tuakana/teina (mentorship)
relationships. Te K provides continuity in terms of those relationships and also in
the style and language of learning.
[63] Olivia’s clear view is that she wishes to go back to Te K. My impression
from the school report is that Olivia was a star student. She is reported as having
gained a reputation for being the class doctor. She would take a child who needed
attention to the sick bay and provide a diagnosis.
[64] Olivia told Mr Askelund in November 2016, before the Family Court hearing,
that what she likes about Te K includes: all her friends, especially all the girls in her
group; a really fun playground; kapa haka and sports. She said she much preferred
Māori schools to Pākehā schools because Pākehā “is not good and has more bullies”.
She said she did not know much about Pākehā schools because her mother “had not
finished the story”, but when her mother was a child, Pākehā had made fun of her for
being a Māori, until she showed them her Māori skills.
[65] Just before this appeal was heard, Olivia listed for Mr Askelund what she
liked about Te K:
Because it is my family language … my mum’s family language.
Because they give you food whenever you don't have any.
Because they are loving.
Because they make sure you always have someone to play with.
[66] Olivia said she would be very upset if she could not go back there.
[67] There was some material before the Family Court which suggested that Te K
fell short academically. In addition, the evidence on appeal from Ms Z was that
Olivia was well below her year group on enrolment at St P. However, Ms Z readily
clarified under concise questioning from Ms Cole that the testing was in English, and
had it been in te reo, the results would likely have been materially different.
Ms Cole also tendered a report (which I accept into evidence) from the previous
Minister for Education, Hekia Parata, which concluded:
… the data shows us that the best results by Māori students have been
achieved in Māori-medium education… The benefits of Māori medium
education are most strongly realised when students remain in Māori medium
for their entire compulsory education pathway (years 1 to 13).
[68] Ms Z was aware of the report and agreed with it.
[69] The significant caveat with regard to Te K is, as pointed out by
Ms Armstrong and Mr Askelund, Olivia’s attendance there does not facilitate
ongoing consultation and co-operation between Olivia’s parents, which is
particularly important in terms of schooling. Olivia started at Te K against
Mr Cavanagh’s wishes and his views have strengthened from there.
[70] I record that Ms T gave evidence that Mr Cavanagh attended Olivia’s
pōwhiri, or start day, at Te K and to the effect that he clearly approved of her
enrolment. It was agreed that evidence was incorrect. Mr Cavanagh was not
present.
[71] Te K is not geographically close to either parent. Ms Cavanagh gave
evidence in her earlier proceeding in the Family Court that it could take her about
half an hour to drive home to Massey from the school. Te K is far distant from
Mr Cavanagh’s house in Glenfield, although I note his work as an Inspector for the
Ministry of Primary Industries seems to be based in Avondale, which is not so
distant.
St P
[72] St P is a state-integrated Catholic School in Massey. It has a roll of
384 students, of which just eight per cent are Māori, 42 per cent are Pākehā, 18 per
cent are Pasifika and the balance is other nationalities. As I have said, Ms Z was
cross-examined before me. I considered her evidence to be very measured and
impartial and I have no doubt that St P is a very caring, nurturing school. The
Family Court Judge noted the academic prowess of St P.
[73] Olivia has been at St P for two terms already and although she expresses a
strong preference for Te K, my impression from what she said to her lawyer is that
she nonetheless likes it at St P. Mr Askelund recorded:
The things she likes about the school are that she can eat anything she wants
at lunchtime. She has lots of friends, about 6, 7 or 8, including Savannah,
Joanna (her best friend), Ruitara and Tamara. She also has some boys who
are friends and she had a pizza, lolly and chocolate pool party at Dad’s house
and three of her school friends came over.
She likes her teacher as they both like science and maths and learning about
new things.
The thing she doesn't like about the school is that people can be a little mean
although not to her most times because she is still getting used to the school
and she is still brand new. She couldn't think of anything else she didn't like.
Reading is challenging because she is still learning new words. She knows
her a, e, i, o, u. She is still catching up. Her teacher takes her for reading
every once in a while, not all of the time.
She thinks she is behind every other person in her class in reading and
writing because they have been there since day 1.
At school she feels happy and not happy because it can be a little
challenging to remember all the rules like to wear your hat and to not break
the school treaty which is not hitting and no punching and no bullying.
[74] The evidence from Ms Z was that Olivia’s performance in the St P reading
and arithmetic tests was improving rapidly.
[75] I admire Olivia for achieving and managing as well as she has at St P. It must
be very difficult for her, learning in a different language and under a different
system. Her achievement also reflects well on Te K and St P.
[76] St P has the significant advantage of being very close to Ms Cavanagh’s
home. I gather it is about three minutes’ drive away. Proximity of her school to one
or other of her parents seems to me to be desirable for Olivia. She is having to travel
in any event from one parent’s house to another (Glenfield to Massey) and spread
herself between those two places. It would be ideal if she could feel secure at a
school near to one of them, from the perspective of cementing friendships at least.
[77] As with Te K, Olivia’s attending St P also does not facilitate ongoing
consultation and co-operation, as her parents will no doubt continue to be at
loggerheads over it. Ms Cavanagh has made it clear she does not want Olivia to
attend a mainstream school, but in particular, she does not want her to attend a
Catholic school. I agree with the Family Court Judge that this could be questionable
given the two older boys have attended R College, a Catholic boys’ school, and
Mr and Ms Cavanagh both signed an enrolment form for St M. Nonetheless, I
proceed on the basis that Ms Cavanagh has had a genuine change of heart. It seems
that her familiarity with her taha Māori has intensified since early 2015. That timing
seems to align with an increasing shift towards incorporation of te ao Māori into the
national identity.
[78] What counts very strongly against St P, in terms of Olivia’s best interests, is
the lack of any material te reo component or other programme that would advance
her appreciation of Māoritanga. It is perhaps surprising in 2017, especially given the
Māori Language Act, that it is not yet Government policy that all primary schools
teach te reo as a compulsory subject. I note also that, whether it is cause or effect,
St P has a very small Māori student enrolment. This may just reflect a low
percentage of Catholic Māori. Ms Z did say they are building on their te reo
programme, but at the moment Olivia would be well ahead of the teaching level.
NC School
[79] NC School (Te Kura-ā-Rito o NC) is an inner-city school with 270 pupils.
The school roll is 43 per cent Māori, 36 per cent NZ European/Pākehā, four per cent
Pasifika and 17 per cent other. There are three units: full immersion (i.e. Māori),
bilingual and English medium. Although on the edge of the city, the school
apparently has grounds which include native bush, vegetable gardens and views of
Maungawhau and Maungakiekie. Like Te K, enhancing children’s appreciation of
the natural environment is a key component of the curriculum.
[80] The school’s practices and curriculum are founded on te ao Māori. Like
Te K, it promotes tuakana/teina relationships. Students are able to extend their
language by participating in pōwhiri, engaging in the school’s bicultural curriculum
and tikanga Māori experiences at iwi celebrations and on marae. The school
recognises that whānau play a key role in their children’s learning.
[81] Home and school learning partnerships are strengthened in a number of ways
by, for example, Te Ara Reo Māori classes for whānau. If Olivia were to go there,
such classes could be beneficial to both Mr and Ms Cavanagh’s ability to engage
with their daughter’s education and the development of her cultural identity and
language.
[82] The bilingual unit, which is the proposed unit for Olivia, would assist in the
development of Olivia’s taha Māori and it is significant, it seems to me, that the
school has a high Māori enrolment. I consider that to be very desirable for someone
who identifies as Māori.
[83] NC is a school that was proposed by Ms Cavanagh in the first place and
strongly endorsed by her at that point. As I recorded earlier, Ms Cole says
Ms Cavanagh has since researched these schools and no longer supports the concept
of a bilingual unit. Her reasons are that a bilingual unit is still a mainstream setting
and that bilingual children do not do well, particularly in becoming fluent in te reo. I
have little evidence of that, but I accept there is likely merit in it. I assume that a
bilingual unit will involve only half of the class time in te reo, which is not even half
of the school day.
[84] NC does have some obvious disadvantages from Olivia’s perspective. There
is not only no continuity of schooling; NC would be Olivia’s third school in a
relatively short period of time. She would have to start all over again in making
friends and establishing herself. It is some distance from both of her parents,
although it is probably not far off a mid-point. Ms Cole submitted from the bar that
it could sometimes take one-and-a-half hours by car from Ms Cavanagh’s house to
the city. Also, NC is close to central Auckland, which does not strike me as an easy
location in itself. I am not so concerned about the distance in terms of time spent in
the car with her parents, as that can be valuable one-on-one time. Rather, NC
concerns me regarding Olivia’s seeing friends in the weekend and holidays.
[85] Olivia may not know of the NC option. As I have said, it was brought to the
forefront again by Mr Askelund’s memorandum two days before this appeal. I have
to assume Olivia would be against a change to NC.
Decision
[86] I agree with Mr Askelund that, although frustrating and near impossible at the
time, with the benefit of hindsight, the appellant’s bilingual schools proposal should
have been considered. It is a great shame that the bilingual proposal was not
investigated and evidenced by Ms and Mr Cavanagh and Olivia’s lawyer well before
26 January 2017. As I have said, the decision not to consider the bilingual schools
was entirely understandable in the circumstances, in the absence of evidence as to
bilingual education and Mr Cavanagh’s opposition to the option.
[87] Te K, St P and NC are all very different but good schools. I have read and am
impressed by their ERO reports and the other information on file. Olivia is a bright,
outgoing child, with parents who are keenly interested in her education. Olivia
would in all probability do well and be happy at any of the three schools, over time.
The question is, all things considered, which school best serves Olivia’s interests?
[88] As to the principles in s 5(b) and (c), which are clearly engaged here, NC is,
in my view, the best option. The singular advantage of NC is that it removes, or goes
a very long way to removing, the flashpoint between Olivia’s parents over her
school, in a situation where both parents’ viewpoints are understandable.
[89] I agree with the Family Court Judge that Mr Cavanagh’s apparent inability to
have meaningful input in Olivia’s school life at Te K is one of a number of factors
against Olivia’s attendance there. This stems primarily from the learning being
entirely in te reo. More importantly, he did not agree with Olivia’s attending Te K in
the first place. Section 16 of the COCA clearly sets out that guardianship decisions
are to be made jointly, by consultation.
[90] Similar problems exist in relation to St P. Ms Cavanagh is clear that she does
not want Olivia to attend a mainstream school, and in particular a Catholic school.
St P does not represent a compromise that both parties can live with. It lacks a
number of the factors Ms Cavanagh desires for her daughter’s schooling – the most
notable gap being its current inability to enhance Olivia’s te reo Māori and
understanding of tikanga, to which I will return.
[91] While this is a discussion about the parents’ views, it is very much about
Olivia. The engagement of both parents in their child’s education is an important
component of that education, and key to the child’s success, using that word in its
broadest sense. Both parents have genuinely held views about what is best for Olivia
in terms of her education, and both of their views appear to be supported by good
reasons. As a result, neither party appears likely to budge. While mere inflexibility
by one or both parties should not necessitate appeasement of a party by a Court, I
consider the reasons underlying their differences here run deep and will continue to
cause difficulties if not alleviated. As long as Olivia attends Te K, or St P, I am
concerned it will remain a bone of contention between her parents. That can only be
detrimental to her interests. In my view, NC provides, as Ms Cole put it back in
January, a fresh start and a compromise.
[92] In terms of s 5(d), I acknowledge NC does nothing in the way of continuity
of schooling for Olivia. The best school for advancing that principle would be Te K,
considering Olivia enjoyed two years there. Te K provides continuity both in style
of learning but also in terms of friendships and other relationships, such as that with
her kura whānau as noted by Ms Cole. St P provides continuity to a much lesser
degree, Olivia having only spent two terms there, but I note her views recorded
above and that she seems to have transitioned well and made new friends. However,
as I have said above, neither Te K nor St P is favourable in terms of ss 5(b) and (c).
[93] Ms Cole attempted to make something of s 5(e) in terms of Olivia’s
relationships at Te K. As a matter of statutory interpretation, and in light of the
comments of the Justice and Electoral Committee referred to earlier, I am not
convinced s 5(e) necessarily encompasses relationships unconnected by family links
or whakapapa, the preceding words “family group” colouring the scope of the words
that follow. However, I have acknowledged Olivia’s relationship with her kura
whānau likely goes toward the continuity principle in s 5(d).
[94] In terms of s 5(e), I do consider that Olivia’s relationship with each of her
parents will be strengthened by attendance at NC, but not by attendance at the other
schools.
[95] Last, and by far from least, is the question of Olivia’s cultural identity, in
terms of s 5(f) and, by extension, s 20 of the NZBORA and the relevant articles of
UNCROC.
[96] I accept s 5(f) has particular importance in the present case. Olivia is a Māori
child. She attended a kohanga reo for four years by agreement between both parents.
She attended a full immersion Māori school for two years. She is fluent in te reo at
the age of seven.
[97] For reasons that should be obvious from the foregoing, Te K scores the
highest in strengthening Olivia’s identity. That is not of course true in terms of her
Pākehā side, but that is a culture that does not need reinforcement, at least not in the
present context.
[98] However, I consider NC is not too far behind Te K in meeting the principle
under s 5(f). As I have noted, as well as the bicultural and bilingual learning
environment, the school’s practices and curriculum are based on te ao Māori and the
school has a significant number of Māori students.
[99] I suspect Ms Cavanagh is correct that, even in a bilingual setting, Olivia will
lose her fluency. But in a bilingual unit at NC she would nonetheless be sufficiently
well grounded to go on to achieve fluency again, if motivated to do so, and she starts
apparently from a strong te reo base. Also, I expect that it would be possible if the
parties agreed at some later date, which I would hope they might, for Olivia to move
out of the bilingual unit into the full immersion unit at NC.
[100] I accept Ms Cole’s submission that Ms Cavanagh or her family or
connections would not be able to develop Olivia’s understanding of te reo, tikanga
and Māoritanga if Olivia were to remain at St P.
[101] Ms Cavanagh has backed away from her proposal that Olivia attend NC, and
I appreciate NC does not exemplify te ao Māori in the way Te K does. I note that
NC is also not Mr Cavanagh’s preference, that being St M, followed by St P.
Nevertheless, the many positives of NC that were advanced by Ms Cavanagh back in
January this year remain substantially true, as far as I can tell. Considering
Mr Cavanagh and Mr Askelund are in agreement with Olivia’s attending the
bilingual unit at NC and considering the proposal did come from Ms Cavanagh in
the first place, it seems to me both parents should be able to live reasonably happily
with NC. They will also both be able to be engaged with the school. Both these
factors will be a big plus for Olivia.
[102] Weighing up all factors, I consider none of the three schools to be ideal for
Olivia, but I consider NC to be the school which it is in her best interests to attend. I
cannot express my reasons much better than Ms Cavanagh did in her own list
provided to the Family Court in January this year. I am particularly influenced by
the school’s obviously successful commitment to te reo and te ao Māori, witnessed
amongst many other things by the size of the Māori roll.
[103] I know Olivia will be upset and she will find it hard to make another change.
But I take some comfort in the fact that she is obviously very adaptable, judging by
the number of friends she recites at St P after four months, and that she will
hopefully be able to resume her te reo stardom. She will, again, be able to speak her
mum’s family language. That was at the top of Olivia’s last list.
[104] In the absence of any agreement to the contrary from the parties beforehand,
I therefore order that Olivia attend NC School from the beginning of Term 3, 2017.
[105] As a matter of form, it follows that the three appeals are allowed.
Addendum
[106] I follow the lead of the Family Court Judge and urge the parties to still try to
reach agreement. I raise the following possibilities, without limitation:
(a) It appears that when Ms Cavanagh raised NC and RB School as
bilingual school options in the Family Court, she had a preference for
RB School. That school has not been raised before me. I am not sure
why. It appears to be much closer to Ms Cavanagh’s house than NC.
From the information provided on 27 January 2017, I cannot see that
there would otherwise be any material difference between RB School
and NC, so that if Ms Cavanagh still has a preference for RB School,
there would be no apparent reason for Mr Cavanagh to disagree.
(b) They might agree on another school altogether.
(c) Mr and Ms Cavanagh should also give careful thought to when Olivia
should change over to NC. I have made the order effective from the
end of this term, as that was the basis of argument. It might, however,
be better for Olivia if the changeover were at the end of the school
year. That might also give more time for Mr and Ms Cavanagh to
carefully consider all possibilities. I suggest the parties or their
counsel liaise with the relevant School Principals over this, and over
the other possibilities I have raised, or that they might consider.
[107] I reserve leave for the parties to seek alternative orders by consent. The
question of costs is also reserved. If Mr Cavanagh wishes to seek costs, he should
file a memorandum within three weeks and Ms Cavanagh within two weeks after
that. I note though, that at least in part, this appeal has arisen because neither parent
fully investigated the options that were best for Olivia until the day after the
Family Court hearing and then again until two days before this hearing. Quite
clearly the responsibility for that fell on them both, not just Ms Cavanagh.
[108] The issue of appointment of lawyer for the child in cases involving a Māori
child has arisen a number of times, here and elsewhere. As the Family Court
Practice Note for the selection and appointment of lawyers for children states,
lawyers for children should have personal qualities compatible with assisting
negotiations in suitable cases.19
Consistent with that, I would endorse Māori
children having Māori representation, or a lawyer with relevant expertise where
possible, especially where cultural identity is clearly at issue. That is no reflection
whatsoever on Olivia’s lawyer here, whose recommendation I have in fact adopted,
19
Family Court Practice Note Lawyer For Child: Selection, Appointment and Other Matters
(28 March 2015) at 9.9.
but rather I see it as a matter of choosing a lawyer with the most appropriate
qualifications and expertise, as with any client.
……………………………………………
Hinton J