Dispute between guardians — schooling — te reo immersion — kura kaupapa — welfare and best interests — child's views — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 5, 46G & 46R. These proceedings were to determine a dispute between the parents of a 12 year old child in relation to his location and schooling, as well as day-to-day care of the child and contact and conditions for the non-primary carer parent. An interim parenting order was in place, which specified the child was to be in the day-to-day care of the mother. The child had been in te reo immersion schooling since pre-school and was currently in a kura kaupapa school at intermediate level. The parents of the child were separated and now lived in different locations. The applicant father wanted the child to attend a larger, multi-lingual intermediate school in the area where he lived, and the respondent mother wanted the child to continue in a smaller te reo immersion school in the area where she lived. Neither parent wished to shift location. The father raised concerns about the child's performance at the kura, including in English, and submitted the child would be better off in a larger, multi-lingual school. The mother submitted that English would be an upcoming focus, and that relocating the child now would be detrimental to the child's wellbeing, as he tended to take some time to adjust to big life changes. The mother also provided expert witness evidence from an expert in bilingual/immersion education in Aotearoa New Zealand, whose evidence was that the child should remain in a te reo immersion school for at least another year to cement his language. The Court took into account the child's views, which were that he enjoyed his current school; however, the Court noted that his views did not account for his current performance. The Court also took into account the child's welfare and best interests, and accepted that there was no evidence to contradict the expert witness' evidence. The Court ordered that the child was to remain at his current school for at least another year. The parenting orders were put in the alternative: if the father was to relocate to near the child's school, then there would be a shared care arrangement between both parents. If both parents remained living in their current locations, the interim parenting order was to become final, with some additions around contact for the father. The Court also directed that a communication assistant be appointed by the parties to assist them on their communication with one another on matters to do with their child. The Court declined to make an order as to the child's secondary schooling education, instead encouraging the parties to resolve this between them. Judgment Date: 28 March 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *