NON-IDENTIFICATION OF A PARENT WITH CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS NOT A REASON FOR REFUSING TO ENROLL A CHILD IN A CHURCH SCHOOL IF IT IS CLOSER TO THE CHILD'S HOME

#91Non-identification of a parent with Christian doctrine is not a reason for refusing to enroll a child in a church school if it is closer to the child's home

Church schools are also part of the school system of the Slovak Republic and represent a full-fledged form of education for pupils. If the father is not a believer and does not identify himself with Christian doctrine, the above is not a reason for refusal of enrolment of such a pupil by an elementary church school.

The proceedings concerned the ordering of an interim measure replacing the father's consent to the application for primary school, following the father's appeal against the order of the District Court of Žilina. The amendment containing partial changes came into force on 01.07.2023, however, the amendment in question also contained provisions that had to wait until 01.09.2023 to come into force and relate to internal whistleblowing systems and sanctions.

The proceedings concerned the ordering of an interim measure replacing the father's consent to the application for primary school, following the father's appeal against the order of the District Court of Žilina.

The dispute concerned the disagreement between the minor's parents on the choice of primary school. The mother had chosen the school in question in view of the location or the short distance between the school and their current residence. The reason given was that the mother also works close to the place of residence and so it would be impractical to travel a long distance and, given the minor's age, she could not be expected to go to school alone.

My father disagreed with the choice of this school because it is a church school. However, the order shows beyond doubt that the minor was by the judgment committed to the custody of the mother and the mother chose the elementary school in the district of their residence. The trial court did not certify any reason why the father's consent to the application should not have been granted. It sided with the mother's view and based its decision on the fact that the child would not be harmed by the extra hours of religious instruction over and above the hours of instruction in the regular primary school.

In view of the existing disagreements between the parents and considered it necessary to issue an urgent order granting consent in place of the father to the application for primary school of the mother's choice. This was also because of the urgency of the deadline, which was crucial for the submission of the college application. The father appealed against the order. He requested the court to grant urgent relief in the form of consent on behalf of the mother for the registration of their joint daughter in another primary school of the father's preference. After examining the facts of the parties' case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the order of the trial court was factually correct. There was thus a departure from the order for a hearing.

The Court states that the interim measure is one of the security institutions, the decision of which is not final, but only temporary. It may be ordered only under conditions of urgent adjustment of the situation between the parties, and urgency must be a prerequisite. In making its decision, the court shall, above all, have regard to the interests of the minor child. The court therefore gave priority in its decision to considerations of the familiar environment and the distance between the minor's home and school.