Legal Diary by David Ruddy BL, Principal of Talbot BNS, Clondalkin, Dublin 22
Less Favourable Treatment of Pupil by School Principal results in €700 Fine EQUALITY TRIBUNAL 2014 A Mother and Father, on behalf of their son V Board of Management of a Gaelscoil A school principal, who is currently on administrative leave, was found to have discriminated on religious grounds and in contravention of Equal Status Legislation against a Church of Ireland pupil. The school, which is under the patronage of An Forás Pátrúnachta, is Interdenominational in ethos but only facilitates instruction in Catholic and Church of Ireland religious instruction. Sacramental Preparation The boy’s parents complained that when in 2nd class a significant amount of time was spent each day practising for the First Communion even though he would not be receiving the sacrament. They asked for him to be allowed read a book at the back of the class. The principal refused stating that the parents could take him home instead. This was not an option as both parents worked. When the parents queried why religious instruction was almost entirely Catholic, the principal allegedly responded by stating that both religions were 95 per cent the same. They were also told they could move the boy to another school, If they so wished. All 3rd and 4th class children were required to participate in choir practices for first Communion and Confirmation the following year. The boy did not attend the actual First Communion ceremony. The following Monday those pupils who did not attend with the choir were asked to stand out against a wall by the principal. He praised the remainder of the class and gave them two nights without homework.
The Hearing The school was represented by the chairperson of the Board of Management and the acting principal. The Chairperson made an unreserved apology in relation to the alleged behaviour of the principal. The school was ordered to review its policies and procedures to ensure that they were in line with the provisions of the Equal Status Act and to place a notice to this effect in a prominent position within the school. It was also noted in the judgement that the boy had a sister who also attended the school and that there were no issues in relation to her treatment.
The boy’s parents complained that when in 2nd class a significant amount of time was spent each day practising for the First Communion even though he would not be receiving the sacrament. COURT DECIDES ON POST PRIMARY PLACEMENT FOR 6TH CLASS PUPIL B.B (The Father) V A.A (The Mother) Hogan J (High Court) 2013 Where two parents cannot agree a choice of school for their twelve year old son, what, if any, is the role of the Court in resolving the dispute?
PAG E 4
Facts This case was an appeal from a Circuit Court decision. A married couple with two children (a boy and girl) separated. The parents were joint guardians and whilst the children lived with the mother, the father has considerable access to the children. The girl is 14 yrs old, has a disability, and is likely to be financially dependent on her parents for some time. The boy was about to enter post primary school. Aptitude tests showed that the boy was in the highest percentile ranking. He was offered a place in two schools. One (School A) was non fee-paying, the other (School B) was feepaying. School A had a high level of academic and other achievements with many of the boy’s friends attending. School B has an outstanding reputation and is, by common consent, one of the leading schools in the country. Places at this school are highly coveted and are greatly in demand. The school fees are considerable. The father recently lost a highly-paid job and the mother receives a modest remuneration for her job. The mother wished for the boy to attend school B on the grounds that the school was prepared to reduce the fees by 50 per cent. Her parents were willing to pay the balance. There was also a savings fund of €16,000 and a lump sum donation of €30,000 from the father’s brother. The boy also expressed an interest in attending this school. The father was in favour of school A. He argued that the family finances were precarious and that the savings should not be accessed. He also stated that the family should not be dependent on the goodwill of the grandparents. Judgement The judge enquired as to whether he would interview the boy but both parents declined as they felt it would have an unsettling effect on him.