New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Continuity of care

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2023

DRAKE v DRAKE [2023] NZHC 2390

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2390
Court

High Court

The High Court found the Family Court erred by inadequately assessing s5(d) and by affording insufficient weight to the child's views; the relocation order requiring the child to move to Town B was set aside and replaced with a parenting order providing for equal shared day-to-day care in Town A, with implementation mechanics and counselling directed for the mother; if the father does not take up the shared care option the existing January 2020 order remains in force.
21 Dec 2022

HOPKINS v JACKSON [2022] NZCA 653

Citation

[2022] NZCA 653
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the High Court's treatment of tikanga did not amount to a material legal error that could have produced a different outcome, the decisive issues were the application of s5(d) and (e) favoring continuity and family relationships, and granting leave would prolong litigation to the detriment of the child's best interests and sense of time.
13 Oct 2022

HOPKINS v JACKSON [2022] NZHC 2649

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2649
Court

High Court

The Family Court erred by allowing the school choice to dictate a change in care without giving sufficient weight to s 5 principles relating to continuity, the child's relationship with her father and sisters and the child's cultural identity; on proper application of s 5(d),(e) and (f) the prior 2:2:3 shared care arrangement should be reinstated and the child directed to attend School A as being in her welfare and best interests.
19 Dec 2016

KYLE v BOWEN [2016] NZHC 3144

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3144
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because primary school placement has medium/long‑term implications; although the Family Court Judge erred by treating s5(e) and s5(f) as having been satisfied without further inquiry and by over‑emphasising the mother's stability under s5(d), on a full reassessment the child was settled at B school, continuity of care and the ability of both schools to support cultural identity meant remaining at B school was in the child's best interests; appeal dismissed.
21 Dec 2015

THORPE v BARRETT [2015] NZHC 3344

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3344
Court

High Court

The Family Court erred by improperly treating the mother's decision to relocate as inherently unreasonable and by unduly discounting the children's clearly expressed views without proper justification under s4(2)(b) and s6; on reassessment the High Court found the balance of relevant factors, particularly continuity of primary care and the children's persistent and genuine wishes, favored relocation to the mother's residence in the South Island and allowed the appeal.
1 Apr 2015

TOI v TOI & Anor [2015] NZHC 654

Citation

[2015] NZHC 654
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Family Court did not err: the judge properly weighed the psychologist's evidence, the appellant's progress, the conflicted nature of the children's views, and relevant s5 principles; unresolved safety and management concerns, continuity of schooling and logistical difficulties made it in the children's best interests to remain in the aunt's day-to-day care, so the appeal was dismissed.
10 Sept 2013

ABBOTT v BLAIR [2013] NZHC 2358

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2358
Court

High Court

Because the Family Court's relocation decision materially depended on the respondent's asserted emotional state and the asserted benefit to the child, and the existing evidence of that emotional state was not sufficiently compelling on its face, the High Court set aside the relocation order and referred the matter back to the Family Court for reconsideration after the production of a report from a suitably qualified expert addressing the respondent's emotional state, its effect on the child, and the likely benefits of relocation.

New Zealand Case Law

DRAKE v DRAKE [2023] NZHC 2390

HOPKINS v JACKSON [2022] NZCA 653

HOPKINS v JACKSON [2022] NZHC 2649

KYLE v BOWEN [2016] NZHC 3144

THORPE v BARRETT [2015] NZHC 3344

TOI v TOI & Anor [2015] NZHC 654

ABBOTT v BLAIR [2013] NZHC 2358