DKP v MJM [2017] NZHC 109

DKP v MJM [2017] NZHC 109

Leave to appeal under s143 was declined because the appellant failed to identify any seriously arguable material error of law or fact; permitting the appeal would not be in the children's best interests given the significance of stability, steps already taken towards relocation, the children's views, the orders preserving visitation and electronic contact, and the Family Court's permissible assessment of credibility.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 109
Parties
Appellant: DKP; Respondent: MJM; Children: J, X and A
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Guardianship/relocation Under Care of Children Act 2004 (s46 R) / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S143; Interim Stay in Force; Decision on Leave and Stay
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal declined; interim stay lifted; scheduled hearing vacated
Legal Topics
Relocation Under S46 R, Leave to Appeal Under S143, Best Interests of the Child, Credibility and Evidence Rules, Stay of Execution
Family Law Child Custody and Guardianship Appeals Procedure Relocation Under S46 R Leave to Appeal Under S143 Best Interests of the Child Credibility and Evidence Rules Stay of Execution

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DKP

Appellant

MJM

Respondent

J, X and A

Children

Procedural Posture

Guardianship/relocation Under Care of Children Act 2004 (s46 R) / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S143; Interim Stay in Force; Decision on Leave and Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s143 should be granted to appeal a Family Court s46R relocation order
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has identified a seriously arguable material error of law or fact
  3. 3 Whether continuation of an appeal process is in the best interests of the children

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal under s143 was declined because the appellant failed to identify any seriously arguable material error of law or fact; permitting the appeal would not be in the children's best interests given the significance of stability, steps already taken towards relocation, the children's views, the orders preserving visitation and electronic contact, and the Family Court's permissible assessment of credibility.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal declined; interim stay lifted; scheduled hearing vacated

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal is declined
  • The interim stay of execution of Judge Barkle's guardianship/relocation orders is lifted