New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Section 5 principles

  • 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.

  • 25 May 2011

    MILLETT v CLYDE HC WN CIV-2011-485-000111

    Citation
    openlaw-7b4efa31_c6a7_46b5_ba24_94e7f374de73.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    On appeal by way of rehearing the court must apply ss 4 and 5 of the Care of Children Act 2004 in a fact‑specific inquiry without presuming against relocation; given the particular circumstances (notably the new baby sibling in Auckland, the boys' adaptability and expert evidence they can thrive in either location) the Judge correctly balanced s 5 factors and the parenting order granting the mother day-to-day care and relocation to Auckland was not wrong.