NM V AG HC AK CIV 2012-404-842

NM V AG HC AK CIV 2012-404-842

The appeal is dismissed because the Family Court did not err in principle or exercise of discretion: the court-appointed psychologist's evidence and the record established that the father's conduct and failure to pursue counselling and appropriate supervised contact posed a material emotional risk to the child; the father effectively elected not to pursue the interim regime and therapy, and a final supervised-access order with conditions was necessary and proportionate to protect the child's welfare and provide finality.

Citation
openlaw-84e04ceb_35ec_42f6_bd15_8fdc2ed235e2.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: NM; Defendant: AG; Child: A
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Family Court Under the Care of Children Act 2004 / High Court Rehearing on Appeal as of Right; Final Parenting Order Under Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Family Court final parenting order confirmed
Legal Topics
Parenting Orders, Contact/supervised Access, Welfare and Best Interests, Psychological Assessment, Judicial Predisposition/ Predetermination
Family Law Child Welfare Appellate Procedure Parenting Orders Contact/supervised Access Welfare and Best Interests Psychological Assessment Judicial Predisposition/ Predetermination

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NM

Plaintiff

AG

Defendant

A

Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Family Court Under the Care of Children Act 2004 / High Court Rehearing on Appeal as of Right; Final Parenting Order Under Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court wrongly attributed failure of interim contact/counselling to the father
  2. 2 Whether the Judge predetermined the outcome by his November 2011 minute
  3. 3 Whether the final parenting order adequately protected and promoted the child's welfare and best interests

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Family Court did not err in principle or exercise of discretion: the court-appointed psychologist's evidence and the record established that the father's conduct and failure to pursue counselling and appropriate supervised contact posed a material emotional risk to the child; the father effectively elected not to pursue the interim regime and therapy, and a final supervised-access order with conditions was necessary and proportionate to protect the child's welfare and provide finality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Family Court final parenting order confirmed

Orders

  • The Family Court final parenting order dated 19 January 2012 is confirmed
  • Father (NM) to have supervised access to child (A) every second Sunday for two and a half hours at Barnardos or as otherwise agreed or ordered