New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contact/visitation

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2018

BAKER v HARDING [2018] NZHC 2885

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2885
Court

High Court

Admitting the post-decision evidence as updating evidence, the High Court found that on balance the child's welfare and best interests were served by continuing day-to-day care with the mother in Edgecumbe (continuity, schooling progress, settled household and maintained parental relationships); the father's appeal and fresh application were dismissed. The mother's relocation breached an earlier interim direction but that breach and her conduct did not justify transferring day-to-day care to the father.
16 May 2017

[SCOTLAND] v [IRELAND] [2017] NZHC 1002

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1002
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because Judge Coyle's findings that the mother had a history of unilateral actions and that significant parental hostility posed a real risk to the children's welfare were open on the evidence; the parenting orders struck the appropriate balance to maximise each child's opportunity to build relationships with both parents and siblings and to reduce conflict, and the child should be known by her registered name to avoid confusion.
5 Feb 2016

SARAH BROWN v COURTNEY WILSON [2016] NZHC 262

Citation

[2016] NZHC 262
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Family Court judge erred by giving excessive weight to parts of the psychologist's report and by failing properly to apply and explain the s5 welfare principles, particularly continuity and preservation of family relationships, and by relying on unsupported assertions about the respondent's employment plans; accordingly primary day‑to‑day care was awarded to the mother as best serving the child's welfare, with more generous contact for the father than the Family Court ordered.
23 Apr 2009

BMT V LRB HC TAU CIV 2009-470-104

Citation

openlaw-2d7d1218_6580_4860_9934_604a025e427c.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's transfer of day-to-day care to the father because the mother's unilateral relocation without consultation infringed statutory obligations, materially disadvantaged the father's ability to maintain meaningful involvement, the father offered a more stable and resourced home with stronger extended family ties in Auckland, the judge properly weighed continuity, the children's views (including vulnerability of one child), and the Family Court's evaluative judgment about the children's best interests was not wrong.

New Zealand Case Law

BAKER v HARDING [2018] NZHC 2885

[SCOTLAND] v [IRELAND] [2017] NZHC 1002

SARAH BROWN v COURTNEY WILSON [2016] NZHC 262

BMT V LRB HC TAU CIV 2009-470-104