L V T HC TAU CIV-2011-470-00568

L V T HC TAU CIV-2011-470-00568

The appeal is dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision that the mother is better placed to provide day-to-day care given her greater availability, capacity to respond to the child's medical condition and approach to adolescence, and ability to support extracurricular interests; the judge lawfully weighed s5 principles, the child's wishes, the s133 report and status quo and was not shown to be wrong. Further evidence tendered on appeal was inadmissible without leave and the respondent's application to discharge the costs order on the stay was dismissed; costs on appeal awarded to respondent on a 2B basis.

Citation
openlaw-b90ae1d6_d1b8_4c2f_9686_a723199aa9fc.pdf
Parties
Appellant (father): L; Respondent (mother): T; Child: E
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Care of Children Act 2004 / High Court Appeal (rehearing) Judgment Delivered 24 August 2011
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Family Court parenting order in favour of mother confirmed with commencement date amended; respondent's application to discharge costs on stay dismissed; costs on appeal awarded to respondent on 2B basis
Legal Topics
Parenting Order, Day to Day Care, Contact, Status Quo, Admissibility of Further Evidence on Appeal, Costs on Interlocutory Applications
Family Law Child Custody and Care Appeals Parenting Order Day to Day Care Contact Status Quo Admissibility of Further Evidence on Appeal +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant (father)

T

Respondent (mother)

E

Child

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Care of Children Act 2004 / High Court Appeal (rehearing) Judgment Delivered 24 August 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court erred in ordering day-to-day care of the child to the mother rather than the father
  2. 2 Proper weight to be given to parental availability and established status quo
  3. 3 Relevance of child's wishes and s133 report on placement

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision that the mother is better placed to provide day-to-day care given her greater availability, capacity to respond to the child's medical condition and approach to adolescence, and ability to support extracurricular interests; the judge lawfully weighed s5 principles, the child's wishes, the s133 report and status quo and was not shown to be wrong. Further evidence tendered on appeal was inadmissible without leave and the respondent's application to discharge the costs order on the stay was dismissed; costs on appeal awarded to respondent on a 2B basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Family Court parenting order in favour of mother confirmed with commencement date amended; respondent's application to discharge costs on stay dismissed; costs on appeal awarded to respondent on 2B basis

Orders

  • Parenting order confirmed: child to be in the day-to-day care of the mother; contact with father as per Family Court judgment [29](2)(b)-(f)
  • Commencement of mother's day-to-day care amended to 4:00 pm on 2 September 2011