P v P [2015] NZHC 1234

P v P [2015] NZHC 1234

The High Court held the Family Court did not err: evidence supported a pattern of parental conflict presenting risk to the child, the existing shared custody status quo was not working and would have changed, and on an individualised assessment the relocation to Melbourne was in the child's best interests (taking...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 1234
Parties
Appellant Father: P (Appellant - father); Respondent Mother: P (Respondent - mother); Child (represented): Z (child)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Relocation / Child Custody Under Care of Children Act 2004 / Appeal to High Court (leave Granted)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relocation of Child, Shared Custody, Best Interests of the Child, Parental Conflict, Compliance With Contact Conditions
Family Law Child Custody Relocation Appellate Review Child Welfare Relocation of Child Shared Custody Best Interests of the Child +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P (Appellant - father)

Appellant Father

P (Respondent - mother)

Respondent Mother

Z (child)

Child (represented)

Procedural Posture

Relocation / Child Custody Under Care of Children Act 2004 / Appeal to High Court (leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relocation to Australia was in the child's best interests
  2. 2 Alleged errors of fact by the Family Court
  3. 3 Whether child's views were ascertained in breach of s6(2) Care of Children Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Family Court did not err: evidence supported a pattern of parental conflict presenting risk to the child, the existing shared custody status quo was not working and would have changed, and on an individualised assessment the relocation to Melbourne was in the child's best interests (taking account of family support, greater stability and maintained contact); the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed and Family Court decision allowing relocation to Australia upheld