Guardianship — education — schooling — home schooling — expert witnesses — admissibility of evidence — "predominant" — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 5, 6 & 16 — Evidence Act 2006, s 25 — Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. The parties were the parents of a young son (the child). Following their separation, they disagreed on his education. The applicant father wanted the child to attend a school near the applicant's house, starting as soon as practicable. The respondent mother was in favour of the child being home-schooled until the end of the school year, and then starting at a school close to her house. As well as resolving this issue, the Court had to determine the admissibility of a report by a psychologist (the witness) that the respondent wanted to admit as evidence. The Court observed that the proposed evidence did not comply with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. The witness had not agreed to comply with the Code of Conduct, had not specified that his evidence was within his area of expertise, and often did not give reasons for the opinions that he stated in his report. The witness's evidence was inadmissible. The child was presently being home schooled by both parents, and was dividing his time between them on an 8:6 fortnightly basis. The applicant believed that the child should start school as soon as possible, while the respondent believed that he was behind his peers in academic progress and therefore attending school would damage his self-esteem. The Court observed that the parties had differences in their teaching methods and in the subjects they covered, and that this put the child at a disadvantage. Given the level of conflict between the parties, it was impracticable for the child to continue to be home-schooled. There was no evidence to suggest that to delay the child's entry into mainstream schooling would allow him to catch up to his peers. The Court found that the respondent's choice of school was preferable. The child was well-settled in the area and knew other pupils at the school. The Court ordered that the child begin at that school at the start of the next school term. Judgment Date: 2 July 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *