New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Lawyer for the child

  • 11 Aug 2021

    DFT v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 2080

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 2080
    Court
    High Court

    The proceeding was struck out because it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action in judicial review: NZLS and its Standards Committees lawfully and properly exercised discretion to defer initial investigation of complaints about a court-appointed lawyer for children to the Family Court under the practice note; the applicant's claims were an attempt to re-litigate Family Court matters, were vexatious and an abuse of process, and therefore the Court must strike out the proceeding and restrain further filings without leave.

    • Lawyer for the child
    • Standards committee discretion
    • Family court practice note
    • Abuse of process
    • Strike-out under high court rules

  • 1 Dec 2020

    DN & LN v Family Court at Auckland & Ors [2020] NZHC 3165

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 3165
    Court
    High Court

    The Court dismissed both the second and third causes of action: errors in the lawyer for the child's report and its influence on Judge Burns contributed to legal error but the proper remedy is to set aside the judicial decision (which was done in the interim judgment) rather than to grant a declaration that the report is ultra vires or to order its removal; and the applicants failed to establish the Saxmere objective test for apparent bias as a fair-minded lay observer would not reasonably apprehend future Family Court judges would be biased by the minutes and memorandum on the file. Conseque…

    • Lawyer for the child
    • S 133 psychological report
    • Apparent bias
    • Natural justice
    • Non-publication orders
    • Ultra vires

  • 17 Sept 2019

    DN v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND (NO 2) [2019] NZHC 2346

    Citation
    [2019] NZAR 1888
    Court
    High Court

    On the pleaded grounds in the judicial review the lawyer for the child's notes are not relevant to the issues to be decided and discovery is therefore not warranted; alternatively, if the notes were later shown to have relevance, they are confidential under s69 Evidence Act 2006 and disclosure should be refused because the public interest in preserving the free flow of information to lawyers for children and protecting relationships outweighs the case for disclosure.

    • Lawyer for the child
    • Confidentiality
    • Privilege
    • Discovery
    • Section 133 psychological report
    • Best interests of the child

  • 16 Aug 2019

    DN v FAMILY COURT AT AUCKLAND [2019] NZHC 2028

    Citation
    [2019] NZFLR 150
    Court
    High Court

    Leave to intervene was granted because the Law Society demonstrated likely assistance to the Court on wider policy and practice issues concerning the role of the lawyer for the child and the obtaining of children's views regarding s133 reports, no prejudice or unacceptable appearance of partiality was established, confidentiality would be maintained, and intervention would not delay the proceeding.

    • Lawyer for the child
    • Intervention in proceedings
    • Judicial review
    • Section 133 care of children act 2004
    • Confidentiality and publication restrictions

  • 30 Oct 2018

    B v T [2018] NZHC 2801

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 2801
    Court
    High Court

    No error of law was demonstrated. The Family Court properly gave limited weight to the 2014 s133 report given changed circumstances and the inability to test the report-writer's evidence; replacement of the lawyer-for-child memorandum was lawful; s5 of the Care of Children Act does not mandate a mathematically exact 50/50 time split and the Family Court's parenting order (fortnightly term-time regime and holiday arrangements) was a justified shared-care arrangement tailored to protect the children's welfare in light of entrenched parental communication breakdown; appeal dismissed.

    • Parenting orders
    • Shared care/time allocation
    • Section 5 principles
    • Section 133 report
    • Lawyer for the child
    • Costs

  • 7 Jul 2015

    CH v SM [2015] NZHC 1599

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 1599
    Court
    High Court

    The Family Court Judge either acted ultra vires by purporting to 'interpret' an existing order or, if viewed as varying the order, did so in a procedurally irregular manner by determining a disputed term after a settlement conference without directing a hearing or directions conference under r 416Y and without giving reasons; this breached natural justice and caused prejudice, so the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for rehearing in accordance with the Act and Rules.

    • Parenting orders
    • Jurisdiction
    • Settlement conference
    • Natural justice
    • Variation of court orders
    • Reasons for decision

  • 30 Nov 2011

    RP V JR HC NWP CIV 2011-443-486

    Citation
    openlaw-5ea05648_1ded_477c_979d_0cb334c3fbbb.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The appeal was allowed and the order requiring the child to live in Taranaki with the father was vacated because evidence that compliance would force the father to return the child while relinquishing day-to-day care changed the fundamental welfare question; the appropriate course was to remit the matter to the Family Court to determine day-to-day care and contact, including the mother's intended application for day-to-day care, with an interim hearing promptly listed.

    • Day-to-day care
    • Contact arrangements
    • Relocation
    • Welfare and best interests
    • Interim orders
    • Lawyer for the child

  • 12 May 2006

    C V S AND ANOR HC NAP CIV-2005-441-776

    Citation
    openlaw-ce55d001_2ea5_45e2_a1c8_06ea6cd39060.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The Care of Children Act 2004 requires that a child capable of forming views be given a reasonable opportunity to express them and those views must be taken into account; here a reasonable opportunity was not given because the four-year-old should have been asked directly or by an appropriate alternative, but the failure was not material to the ultimate disposition because the evidence favouring placement with S was overwhelming, so the appeal is dismissed.

    • Child's views
    • Lawyer for the child
    • Best interests of the child
    • Parenting orders
    • Weight of witness evidence