C V G HC TAU CIV-2012-470-000010

C V G HC TAU CIV-2012-470-000010

The Family Court had no jurisdiction to continue the s91 support order beyond its 12 month maximum; the expired order required the Ministry to provide a s99 report and the Family Court to determine any fresh orders; it was inappropriate to direct a family group conference given the child's welfare, existing Care of Children Act orders, and prior conditions placed on Mr C.

Citation
openlaw-4c62615d_a31d_458b_b0b5_faac127a206a.pdf
Parties
Appellant: Mr C; First Respondent: Ms G; Second Respondent: Mr D; Second Respondent: Mrs D; Third Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing on Appeal in the High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; orders approving the plan, providing for its review and purporting to extend the s91 support order set aside; remaining issues remitted to the Family Court
Legal Topics
Support Order S91 CYPF, Family Group Conference, Review and S99 Report, Restraining Orders, Care of Children Act Interaction, Guardianship, Contact Orders
Family Law Child Protection Care and Protection Jurisdictional Review Support Order S91 CYPF Family Group Conference Review and S99 Report Restraining Orders +3 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr C

Appellant

Ms G

First Respondent

Mr D

Second Respondent

Mrs D

Second Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing on Appeal in the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to continue a s91 support order beyond 12 months
  2. 2 Whether the Court should direct a family group conference
  3. 3 What process should follow the expiry of the s91 order and the role of s99 reports

Ratio Decidendi

The Family Court had no jurisdiction to continue the s91 support order beyond its 12 month maximum; the expired order required the Ministry to provide a s99 report and the Family Court to determine any fresh orders; it was inappropriate to direct a family group conference given the child's welfare, existing Care of Children Act orders, and prior conditions placed on Mr C.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; orders approving the plan, providing for its review and purporting to extend the s91 support order set aside; remaining issues remitted to the Family Court

Orders

  • Orders approving the plan and purporting to extend the s91 support order set aside
  • Restraining order against Mr C dated 29 April 2005 remains in effect on its original terms