New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relocation of child

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2022

S v N [2022] NZHC 2837

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2837
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal declined because the Family Court judge did not commit any material error of fact or law: the judge properly evaluated expert evidence (finding Dr Calvert unreliable in key respects due to lack of data triangulation and failure to update), accepted that the mother has diagnosed conditions but found no current impact on parenting, and reasonably concluded relocation posed significant risk to the children's relationship with their father and continuity of care so was not in their welfare and best interests.
10 Aug 2022

ROSEN v GUY [2022] NZHC 1973

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1973
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce further evidence on appeal was declined because the proposed affidavit was not confined to matters arising after the Family Court decision, would reopen disputed issues already addressed by the Family Court, likely require further s 133 assessment and responsive evidence, and would convert the appeal into a new hearing contrary to the rehearing principle and the need for finality; the appeal must proceed on the materials before the Family Court while giving appropriate weight to the best interests of the child.
28 Jul 2020

NORTON v WILLIAMS [2020] NZHC 1838

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1838
Court

High Court

A limited stay was granted: the court declined to stay the substantive relocation and other orders because the child's welfare and settled expectations favored relocation to town A and a full stay would likely be contrary to the child's best interests; however the court stayed only the component of the order requiring S and Ms Norton to reside at the maternal grandparents' home pending final determination of any appeal to avoid compelling living arrangements and to preserve the appellant's right to appeal while minimizing harm to the child; directions were given for relocation timing (S to be…
11 Jun 2018

SOUTH v SOUTH [2018] NZHC 1369

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1369
Court

High Court

Leave was granted only for the limited, post‑judgment update that was material to the child's welfare — the fact the appellant was granted a three‑year work visa — because that evidence arose after the Family Court decision and increased certainty about the appellant's ability to remain in New Zealand for the immediate years critical to the child. All other proposed evidence (immigration solicitor opinion, further employment detail and financial evidence) was refused because it was not new or not material, risked unnecessarily widening and complicating the rehearing, and would not materially…
4 Jun 2015

P v P [2015] NZHC 1234

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1234
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Family Court did not err: evidence supported a pattern of parental conflict presenting risk to the child, the existing shared custody status quo was not working and would have changed, and on an individualised assessment the relocation to Melbourne was in the child's best interests (taking account of family support, greater stability and maintained contact); the appeal was dismissed.
14 May 2013

F V J HC WN CIV-2013-485-000795

Citation

openlaw-c9e512ba_7bce_4bb7_93d4_dffb17d4cf91.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was dismissed because the court found the child's welfare and best interests outweighed the father's concerns: returning the child to Riyadh would provide stability and distance from parental conflict, the status quo was constructed by the father's earlier removal and therefore less persuasive, the mother's credibility and assurances reduced the risk of non-return (mitigated further by a $10,000 security), the appeal was bona fide and could be heard promptly, and these factors together justified allowing relocation to proceed pending the appeal.
6 Nov 2012

P(CA499/2012) V B COA CA499/2012

Citation

COA CA499/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument; the High Court judge was entitled to rely on the updating new evidence, properly applied s5 principles and welfare considerations, and his conclusion that relocation promoted the children's best interests was open on the evidence.
31 Oct 2012

NR v MR HC WN CIV-2012-485-1359

Citation

openlaw-4fc9d23f_c100_4664_9c77_bf6257539b71.pdf
Court

High Court

Grandmother was the established primary caregiver and relocation preserved continuity of primary caregiving; disruption to relationships with mother and half-brother was moderate but justified by stability and the child's positive schooling prospects and continuity with primary caregiver; therefore relocation was in the child's best interests and the appeal is dismissed.
23 Oct 2009

SCS V GMS CA CA524/2009

Citation

openlaw-92a56e7f_0eb4_4737_9943_a7af297dcb9e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the appeal was premature: the Family Court had not made final factual determinations, further evidence and updated reports were required, and the issues risked producing an advisory opinion. The Family Court is the appropriate forum to resolve the factual and welfare issues for the children and to determine relocation and day-to-day care.
23 Apr 2009

K V B HC AK CIV-2008-404-006583

Citation

openlaw-a343b6ff_1e00_4fb2_898a_dfa011ee73d8.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered remittal because, on a fresh all-factor assessment, remaining in New Zealand exposed the children to ongoing severe parental conflict that posed a significant risk of alienation and long-term harm; relocating to Australia, subject to conditions to secure ongoing positive contact and regular visits with the father, offered a better prospect for the children\'s long-term welfare in a secure extended family environment and therefore relocation should be permitted with safeguards.