L V M HC AK CIV-2009-404-6978

L V M HC AK CIV-2009-404-6978

On the evidence (notably the uncontradicted psychological report and the children's views) the trial judge properly found the children were alienated and that, to protect their emotional and physical safety and to allow gradual repair, contact should be supervised and limited to two supervised visits per year in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-d213ddb0_7547_40d6_bd8a_07a5a91f6867.pdf
Parties
Appellant: L; Respondent: M; Interested Party: Children (C and J)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal (care of Children Act 2004) / High Court Appeal (rehearing From Family Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contact Orders, Supervised Contact, Parental Alienation, Best Interests of the Child, Weight of Expert Evidence, Children's Views on Contact, Cost Allocation for Contact
Family Law Child Welfare Civil Appeals Contact Orders Supervised Contact Parental Alienation Best Interests of the Child Weight of Expert Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant

M

Respondent

Children (C and J)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal (care of Children Act 2004) / High Court Appeal (rehearing From Family Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contact should be supervised or unsupervised
  2. 2 Appropriate frequency and location of contact (Auckland v Christchurch)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in the weight accorded to expert psychological evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence (notably the uncontradicted psychological report and the children's views) the trial judge properly found the children were alienated and that, to protect their emotional and physical safety and to allow gradual repair, contact should be supervised and limited to two supervised visits per year in Auckland with travel costs shared; the High Court found no error in that evaluative assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Original Family Court contact directions upheld: supervised contact only, to occur on two occasions each year in Auckland, travel costs to be shared equally between the parties