CLC v. OIE

FCMC 11439/2019

[2023] HKFC 114

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 11439 OF 2019

----------------------------

------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

Extempore Decision
(Schooling)

------------------------------------------------------------

1.  This is Petitioner Mother’s (“M”) application to enroll the child of the family L, (born XX October 2017) now age 5 1/2, into ISF from ESF X (“X”) in the upcoming school year.

2.  Father (“F”) opposes the application.

3.  I have read the written submissions and heard the oral submission from both sides, with Father via VCF from Germany.

4.  L is born of an Austrian father and a Chinese mother. Since the age of 1 1/2, he has been living in HK. Prior to entering primary school, he studied at Y Kindergarten (“Y”) enrolled in a trilingual course (English, Chinese and Mandarin).

5.  M argues that ISF has always been on her “shortlist”, but missed its enrollment deadline as she was in the middle of the divorce proceedings. The key trigger for this application is that L appears to be declining in his Chinese standard since starting at X in the last school year. On this point, her counsel refers me to his Chinese school work at X and compare to that from Y; I must agree that his standard appears to have declined but despite this, L receives commendation from his X teacher on his Chinese school work.

6.  M says she aims to have L achieve equal proficiency in both languages and believes ISF offers this better than X. She stresses that it is important as L will be in HK in the foreseeable future (F does not dispute this), and the proficiency in both languages and the ability to learn Chinese culture in ISF is important to his Chinese roots.

7.  I agree with M, and am of the view that for a child of L’s mixed ethnicity and nationality, who will be spending his immediate years ahead in HK, that it is important he has the opportunity to attain equal proficiency in both English and Chinese.

8.  I shall deal with the F’s objection below.

9.  F says L should have stability. While I agree this is true as a general principle, I am of the view that at his young age, and having been only in ESF for one year, he can adjust faster and easier if he switches school now, which is better than changing at a later time for his secondary school. The fact that ISF is a “Though-train” means L can progress to secondary school without changing after 6 years, and can stay at ISF for a long period of time.

10.  F says that L’s culture and language will be compromised; and that he will be removed from his European roots.

11.  First on language, it is clear on the evidence before me that ISF pays equal attention to both Chinese and English. I was shown information from ISF as to what classes are taught in which language and the balance is clear. F places heavy influence on the English language and he thinks L’s standard will decline if he attends ISF; and he says that he will have difficulty teaching him German if his standard of English is low. I do not have any evidence that supports F’s conjecture. I also hear that German is an additional bonus which everyone wants for L, but the priority is English and Chinese; and if L is gifted in language as F says, then he will do well going forward. F thinks that it is sufficient for L to be speaking Chinese at home with M; I disagree, L should have the ability to read and write well for him to fare well in HK going forward. The X teacher’s commendation of his Chinese school work tells me that their standard and expectation is not high. I accept that, as F does not know the language, it is not possible for him to grasp the difference in the standard.

12.  I also believe that L’s European roots will not be compromised, L will no doubt meet classmates from different ethnicities at ISF. Furthermore, culture should be instilled at home, and only supplemented at school.

13.  I have cast my mind as to what this change would mean to L, and also perused the two past SIRs to assist me in my analysis. I do note that L used to be quite shy and need time to warm up to people; but the last SIR was dated 13 September 2021, and he might have grown up more by now. I understand that ISF’s small student teacher ratio will help L to adjust. Furthermore, W’s counsel also submitted that L will be entering Foundation year with a whole group of new students entering at the same time, he is not inserting himself into an existing established class mid-year, or mid-grade.

14.  I do not find the F’s concern about entering at the Foundation year a big issue, at this young age, his learning can be consolidated in the upcoming year at ISF, it does not necessary mean that he is taking a step back. I am of the view that in the whole scheme of things, and considering his age, this is not a strong ground of objection.

15.  F’s concern about extra commute time is a relatively minor point, there may well be an increase of a maximum 30 minutes of travel, but it is also time for L to interact with children from different classes and different ages while commuting, and a chance to develop his social skills.

16.  I hear that F’s concern about access can be managed, I will not dwell on this, except to encourage M to consider more compromise after the result of this application.

17.  It is often not easy to make decisions for School Summons, the Court’s duty is to have the child’s best interest in mind. On a balance of probability, I agree that L should be given a chance to achieve proficiency in both languages, and to rise up to new challenges. I do not see any evidence that he will fail.

Costs

18.  Despite F’s objection to M’s Summons, she has been granted leave, but I appreciate F’s concern albeit some of them might be misconceived. I shall make no Order as to Costs.