New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contact orders

Legal area

Court

15 Oct 2021

LISTER v ROBERTS [2021] NZHC 2775

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2775
Court

High Court

The application to intervene was declined because the grandparents' interest was insufficiently significant to justify intervention: they had an extant Family Court proceeding through which any orders could be enforced, their intervention would not materially improve the information before the Court, existing parties (including the father and counsel assisting) could protect their interests, and it would not be unjust to determine the appeals without them.
17 May 2021

DN v AN [2021] NZHC 1093

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1093
Court

High Court

Given proven history of family violence, findings that the father exercised inappropriate power and control, his lack of insight into harm caused, evidence he had influenced the elder child's views and breached conditions against discussing adult issues, and the high ongoing parental conflict, shared care or parallel parenting was impracticable and would likely expose the children to unacceptable risk; consequently a day-to-day care order to the mother with continued substantial and structured contact to the father best protected the children's welfare and best interests.
17 Feb 2020

BUSH v JOHNSON [2020] NZHC 186

Citation

[2020] NZHC 186
Court

High Court

The Court held there was no jurisdiction under COCA to compel a child to participate in therapeutic or reunification counselling because the provisions (s 46P/s 46T) enabling direction of children were not commenced and s 46G is expressly limited to referral of parties; accordingly the Family Court did not err in that respect. The Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it sought mandated therapeutic intervention but allowed limited contact: the father is permitted to be present at school cultural, sporting events, open days and prize-givings subject to conditions (no physical or verbal contact…
25 Oct 2018

G v N [2018] NZHC 2763

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2763
Court

High Court

The Judge's earlier statements — including a categorical warning that non-compliance would result in the mother losing day-to-day care and references implying imprisonment — created a real risk that a fair-minded informed observer would reasonably apprehend the Judge might not decide impartially; accordingly recusal was appropriate and the appeal was allowed.
11 Jun 2015

X v Y [2015] NZHC 1320

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1320
Court

High Court

The High Court held the guardianship order was made without jurisdiction because no application under s46R was made and was made without giving the mother an adequate opportunity to be heard; the continuation of contact control beyond the expiry of corresponding parenting orders raised serious questions; the appropriate remedy was to set aside or not give effect to the impugned orders on appeal, remit the matter to the Family Court and make consent conditional orders to manage immediate risks and assessment requirements.
30 Sept 2013

G E HAMMOND v A J HAMMOND [2013] NZHC 2545

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2545
Court

High Court

The appeal and informal judicial review were dismissed. The High Court held that (a) delay in listing the Family Court hearing did not establish that the Family Court abetted parental alienation or justify a declaration absent proper evidence and jurisdictional basis; (b) many remedies sought (counselling, bond, orders to enforce s 16(5), contact orders) were moot because appellant abandoned challenge to care and contact and the children opposed contact; (c) some issues were not before the Court or were matters to be resolved in the Family Court (costs on interlocutory strike out application)…
19 Apr 2013

M V A HC TAU CIV-2013-470-000228

Citation

openlaw-879ff724_592d_4a82_9a0f_c79da986b343.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the Family Court judge erred by undervaluing the genuine and mature views of the 12½ year old child under s 6(2)(b); forcing further face-to-face contact was harming the child's physical and psychological welfare and therefore the contact order had to be varied to protect C's best interests — contact confined to no more than one written letter per month from Mr A; the mother's conduct could be relevant to welfare but should not be used to negate the weight of the child's own expressed views.
8 Jun 2012

C V G HC TAU CIV-2012-470-000010

Citation

openlaw-4c62615d_a31d_458b_b0b5_faac127a206a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Family Court had no jurisdiction to continue the s91 support order beyond its 12 month maximum; the expired order required the Ministry to provide a s99 report and the Family Court to determine any fresh orders; it was inappropriate to direct a family group conference given the child's welfare, existing Care of Children Act orders, and prior conditions placed on Mr C.
14 Mar 2012

F V W COA CA750/2011

Citation

COA CA750/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court exercised its power to extend time for an application for leave to appeal, granted leave by consent, and allowed the appeal in part by varying the parenting/contact orders to permit the appellant to contact the child by cellphone and by deleting the prohibition on transporting the child as a passenger on a motorbike; all other parenting and contact orders were confirmed and there were to be no orders as to costs.
20 Apr 2010

L V M HC AK CIV-2009-404-6978

Citation

openlaw-d213ddb0_7547_40d6_bd8a_07a5a91f6867.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence (notably the uncontradicted psychological report and the children's views) the trial judge properly found the children were alienated and that, to protect their emotional and physical safety and to allow gradual repair, contact should be supervised and limited to two supervised visits per year in Auckland with travel costs shared; the High Court found no error in that evaluative assessment and dismissed the appeal.