C V S AND ANOR HC NAP CIV-2005-441-776

C V S AND ANOR HC NAP CIV-2005-441-776

The Care of Children Act 2004 requires that a child capable of forming views be given a reasonable opportunity to express them and those views must be taken into account; here a reasonable opportunity was not given because the four-year-old should have been asked directly or by an appropriate alternative, but the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-ce55d001_2ea5_45e2_a1c8_06ea6cd39060.pdf
Parties
Appellant: C; First Respondent: S; Second Respondent: W
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Court Appeal (care of Children Act 2004) / Appeal Decision / Reserved Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child's Views, Lawyer for the Child, Best Interests of the Child, Parenting Orders, Weight of Witness Evidence
Family Law Child Custody Guardianship Statutory Interpretation Child's Views Lawyer for the Child Best Interests of the Child Parenting Orders +1 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

S

First Respondent

W

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Court Appeal (care of Children Act 2004) / Appeal Decision / Reserved Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court failed to give the child a reasonable opportunity to express views under s6 Care of Children Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the Family Court was entitled to place substantial weight on evidence of a Kohanga Reo administrator (Ms Poutawa)
  3. 3 Whether any non-compliance with s6 was material to outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The Care of Children Act 2004 requires that a child capable of forming views be given a reasonable opportunity to express them and those views must be taken into account; here a reasonable opportunity was not given because the four-year-old should have been asked directly or by an appropriate alternative, but the failure was not material to the ultimate disposition because the evidence favouring placement with S was overwhelming, so the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Day-to-day care to remain with First Respondent (S) under a parenting order (as determined by Family Court)
  • Parenting order to provide weekend contact to Appellant (C) with conditions including communication skills counselling, alcohol and drug treatment, anger management counselling and prohibition on alcohol or drugs while the child is in his care