CDA v DGP [2019] NZHC 3277

CDA v DGP [2019] NZHC 3277

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against interim Family Court orders unless the Family Court has first granted leave under s143(3) of the Care of Children Act 2004; the appellant's attempt to bypass that requirement by appealing the decision to refuse leave is untenable; on the merits the Family Court judge acted within reason in ordering supervised contact and giving weight to available evidence including the children's views.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 3277
Parties
Appellant: CDA; Respondent: DGP
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Care of Children Act Proceedings / Interim Parenting Orders; Appeal to High Court Following Refusal of Leave in Family Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Orders, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Parenting Orders, Child Safety
Family Law Child Welfare Appellate Jurisdiction Interim Orders Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction Parenting Orders Child Safety

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CDA

Appellant

DGP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care of Children Act Proceedings / Interim Parenting Orders; Appeal to High Court Following Refusal of Leave in Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal against interim Family Court orders without Family Court leave under s143(3) COCA
  2. 2 Whether High Court may hear an appeal against a Family Court decision refusing leave to appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Family Court judge erred in assessing risk under s5(a) COCA and in weighing the children's views when making interim supervised/unsupervised contact orders

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against interim Family Court orders unless the Family Court has first granted leave under s143(3) of the Care of Children Act 2004; the appellant's attempt to bypass that requirement by appealing the decision to refuse leave is untenable; on the merits the Family Court judge acted within reason in ordering supervised contact and giving weight to available evidence including the children's views.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
  • Costs awarded to respondent on a 2B basis plus reasonable disbursements; submissions on costs may be filed if not agreed